Luis Escobar raises this very question on his blog as a way of stimulating discussion
amongst the animation community. It’s a good point to raise, especially as
animated films dominate the box office and CGI is wholly dominant amongst
public was aware of the difference back when Toy Story was released. While it
was initially hoped that it’s groundbreaking nature would be enshrined in the
history books by way of its story, thus far, it is its CGI composition that has
That was back in
a different time though; hand-drawn animation was the dominant form, both
popularity and profit-wise. Today, it’s the opposite with CGI being dominant
and hand-drawn all but eliminated from the mainstream box office.
The point is
that with over 10 years of CGI films being released, we’re getting to a point
where people will soon know of nothing else, and associate ‘animation’ with
‘CGI’. Without some education, there is a real concern that hand-drawn
animation may cease to be recognised for its technical merits and instead be
judged on the quality of its story or plot.
the lines are animated TV shows that, while two dimensional, are CGI insofar as
their production through computers and software. Here, the general public has
neither want or need to distinguish between traditional and CGI animation.
Should we be
concerned that the general public is slowly confining hand-drawn animation to
the history books through blatant ignorance? Or does the lack of an ability to
distinguish lie at the feet of Toy Story, the film that has set the mould for
CGI features for the last 17 years?