CGI looks too perfect. Practical effects and traditional animation will always reign supreme.
When I first saw Gunbuster recently, the fact that EVERYTHING was hand-drawn lent it a certain quality that made it even more pleasing to the eye, and I can't explain how that works. And yet it does.
It was made in 1988-89, and it still looks stunning today.
Of course, the movie Akira is this writ large.
My only theory is that the imperfections inherent in the medium keep everything from falling into the uncanny valley.
Maybe it's because Gunbuster was made by the absolute biggest fans of the medium, like Hideaki Anno, who treated the art form with all the respect it so deserved.
Passion project, not corporate slop.
Loved Evangelion, which I saw for the first time last year and is from the same creators, for the same reasons--warts and all.
It's also due to changes in effects.
CGI looks too perfect. Practical effects and traditional animation will always reign supreme.
When I first saw Gunbuster recently, the fact that EVERYTHING was hand-drawn lent it a certain quality that made it even more pleasing to the eye, and I can't explain how that works. And yet it does.
It was made in 1988-89, and it still looks stunning today.
Of course, the movie Akira is this writ large.
My only theory is that the imperfections inherent in the medium keep everything from falling into the uncanny valley.
Maybe it's because Gunbuster was made by the absolute biggest fans of the medium, like Hideaki Anno, who treated the art form with all the respect it so deserved.
Passion project, not corporate slop.
Loved Evangelion, which I saw for the first time last year and is from the same creators, for the same reasons--warts and all.