[Liser Studios]

i hope they don't go towards stuff like that. i don't like impressionism much at all. but, i guess that's just because i like realism.
besides, most 3d CG used in movies is special effects or added characters, like Star Wars or something along those lines. It'd look bad having photography next to impressionism.
but there are some movies out there that are totally 3d, like Final Fantasy or Monsters Inc... but i couldn't see most people wanting to go see impressionism animated. animation is usually thought of as for kids,for one thing... and how many kids like impressionism? and the adults... well, they already have the idea of animation being for kids. But besides that, most adults aren't too into art, so they wouldn't even appreciate impressionism.
so, i don't think that any movies will become like this any time soon. i don't know about games, though.

there have already been movies with cel shaded graphics (in princess mononoke some of the scenes were 3d rendered. but yeah, i guess Zelda is the first, or one of the first, to try traditional animation and cel rendered all done in 3d. no offense, though; but i think it looks dumb. but, again, that's just because i like realism.

[aquamire]

I'm not saying it should all look impressionistic, just that there could be a whole new depth to movies. What Dreams May Come is a movie that uses painterly effects. Im not saying it'd be like a cartoon at all, simply a device inwhich to convey expression just as light shadow and sound are today. Of course a movie with impressionistic characters or objects set in live action would silly.. we're talking whole movies or even video games. Imagine it being as a different kind of camera lense.

Liser Studios, did you actually watch the trailor? Does that at all seem like a cartoon to you? I dont think 'cartoon' even meets the discription with a 10 foot pole.

Tho it occured to me before, I forgot to type, it wouldnt have to be impressionism, anything your imagination can conceive could be used.. it would simply be a device or 'lense' in which to warp reality to the theme of the film in order to better impress an expression on the viewer. Whats left after we have achieved perfectly photorealistic cg?

[ November 17, 2001: Message edited by: aquamire ]

[Liser Studios]

i'm not saying it'd be a cartoon. but the problem is that here in america animation, no matter wether it's cartoony or realistic, is considered to be for kids.
go around a high school (assuming you're still in high school, i don't know how old you are) and say "i watch animation" or "i watch cartoons" 9 out of 10 times you'll hear "cartoons are for kids."
that's why you rarely see any companies make animation directed towards older crowds. Someone tries to make animation for adults, does it realistically instead of cartoony, and the movie bombs. Why? Because as soon as the word "animation" was brought into it people automatically assumed it was for kiddies. And no kiddies wanted to see this movie because it was realistic looking. So neither crowd would accept it.
i don't see why people have to be like that. i mean, who cares if the story is told animated, live actors, on a stage,...etc. A movie should be judged on who it's directed to by content, not by how it was made. I wish animation didn't have such an immature connotation.
but, i guess that's just the way it is here in america, anything animated, wether it be Monsters Inc, Final Fantasy, or even a fully impressionistic movie, it's automatically assumed to be for kids. i hate that so much. heck, that's why i repeated myself 34125151432431 million times.

but i see what you mean about What Dreams May Come. That was a good movie. I guess impressionism would work for some scenes.

[aquamire]

Has anyone seen Still I Rise, or the trailor? If not I recommend checking it out. http://www.umeshshukla.com/ Is where you can watch the trailor and read about it. It's a short film done in 3d, except the artist found a way to render it so it looks like big brilliant strokes of color that an impressionist painter would use. I caught this in an article in Computer Graphics World magazine.

What do you all think about this move away from photorealistic rendering? It seems to be a small but growing trend. Does it favor us digital artists or does it favor programmers? I think this is where 3d games and film will go, away from the photoreal and towards the abstract, to better impress emotions on the viewer or player. What roles do you think there will be for digital artists in the future of such technology?

I recently saw the new Zelda for the Gamecube, and it uses cartoon shaders.. and very nicely I must say, and it could be used as a modern application of this idea.

Just thought it was interesting and thought it might be worthy of discussion. I myself think it to be very cool.. because to me photorealism in games and often in movies, is quite boring.