>Wildebeest stampede was made in CGI Wow I never knew this

File: Many_Heads_of_the_Hydra.jpg (260KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1280x720px

I'd imagine it would be hell to animate if they didn't. Similar to how the Hydra in Hercules would've been hell to animate without CG.

>>89710088
That scene did not age well.

File: aged like milk.jpg (364KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 1920x1080px

>>89712404
It's not so bad depends which scene

>>89709986
If you think about it, the Wildebeest are the ones who murdered Mufasa.

>>89712404
Looks fine in motion. Staring at a single frame is of course going to make any dated effect look much worse.

>>89715004
A creature with no cognitive ability can't commit murder.

>>89715004
Makes about as much sense as pushing someone into traffic and blaming the car that hit him.

>>89709986

Oh man, I wondered why that scene looked so impressive. I always thought it looked seriously complicated to animate.

Although I haven't seen the movie in years, so maybe it is easier to see it as CGI now (especially since the quality would be higher).

>>89712649

Oh Jesus Christ is that an actual screencap from the movie? It looks like an unfinished/in-progress rendered area for a Kingdom Hearts game.

>>89718125
It looked better on theaters, and by that what i mean is, OLD theaters, when they actually transfer the footage from the computers they animated them into film prints and with older non-digital projections, that by default frame blends with light motion blur, it helped a bit.

I mean, i saw Hunchback on theaters back in the day,(that's 96 by the way) and the CG background people didn't pop-up as much.

>>89718125
it came out in fucking 91, give them a break.

>>89718581

Seconding this. I remember that being fucking amazing up on the big screen.

>>89717343
>lions is smarts
>wildebeest of same universe isn't
really makes you ponder

File: CaveofWondersCG.png (712KB, 1288x1010px) Image search: [Google]

712KB, 1288x1010px

A thread about 90s CGI in Disney films and this sonovabitch hasn't been mentioned?

>>89718125

It's pretty amazing what sweeping camera shots can do, especially when it's not the main focus.

File: CarpetCG.png (1MB, 947x844px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 947x844px

>>89720129
Or this guy?

>>89720129
WHAT'S UP MUTHAFUCKAS

>>89718581
>It looked better on theaters, and by that what i mean is, OLD theaters, when they actually transfer the footage from the computers they animated them into film prints and with older non-digital projections, that by default frame blends with light motion blur, it helped a bit.

Honestly this is what I was thinking, but I still feel kind of surprised because I remember when seeing that scene in motion it looked amazing. But back to the "old theatre/blur" thing: I think what really makes things bad for Disney (and other companies) movies is when they release it to be as digital/crisp and sharp as possible. What made a lot of these movies so great was that the CGI WASN'T sharp.

I actually really don't like a lot of modern cartoons because I feel like the quality is too sharp and I prefer them to look softer. Some shows look surprisingly better at a softer level.

>>89718688

Sorry pal, the screencap just surprised me.
But now that I look at what I wrote, and the fact that it came out in 1991: it's very impressive.

File: MY WONDERS.gif (2MB, 500x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x270px

>>89709986

>>89720177
Recently I learned that the carpet was actually animated normally, and the CGI was only to apply the texture pattern.

>>89723776
Makes sense. Everything minus the pattern moves pretty typically.

>>89709986
You couldn't tell?

>>89717247
No it doesn't. I watched it a couple of months ago. The hydra didn't age well, he's right.

Or, more accurately, it never looked good in the first place.

File: Screen-Shot-2015-11-24-at-2.24.26-PM.jpg (177KB, 1370x797px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1370x797px

How would you guys say Treasure Planet's CG fairs today?

File: hercules.jpg (24KB, 223x231px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 223x231px

>>89710088
>>89726761
I remember watching this movie as a kid an never noticing the CG. When I rewatched it a few years later I was pretty surprised at how obvious and bad it now was.

This is true of a lot of things I saw when I was a kid.

>>89726805
The arm looks good, the boats, not so much.

>>89726809
Really? The obvious CGI in the hydra scene was one of the things I hated about that movie as a kid, that and the satyr.

File: if you ever come near my son again.jpg (22KB, 640x352px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 640x352px

>>89726833
Yep, completely didn't notice. Then again, I also didn't notice much in particular about Jar Jar Binks, so I think I was just a pretty unobservant kid.

File: titan ae.png (1MB, 1599x889px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1599x889px

CAUSE IM IN

OVER MY HEAD

>>89710088
They look like Yzma

>>89712404
It honestly never looked quite right to begin with, especially compared with the wildebeest from the Lion King, which you can tell look CGI if you look close enough, but look good anyway, and mesh with the larger world.

>>89726805
The arm still look amazing. The CGI helps it pop even more.

>>89726906
I like it when machinery is portrayed as CG in 2D works. It makes it look more robotic.

>>89726805
>>89726906
Does someone have a webm?

>>89718125
A lot of digital work made before digital TVs suffered from the transfer.