Case Study TWO: The Overindulgence of Technological Innovation
Over the last decade, the animation industry has witnessed a remarkable shift in technological advancement, allowing animators to push the boundaries of what was once considered possible for visual storytelling. Even still, these innovations come with potential risk. Many of the most technically impressive films to come out in the last several years fall short of their potential due to overindulgence in their tools rather than strategic use.
Recent Pixar films, including Toy Story 4, The Good Dinosaur, and Soul, represent apt examples of how overreliance on technical ability can overshadow artistic cohesion and disrupt emotional resonance. The following case studies will examine these films to identify where they succeed, where they fail, and speculate as to the reasons they have ultimately fallen short.
The Good Dinosaur (2015)
The Good Dinosaur was a significant departure from Pixar's typically cohesive visual style, serving as a stark example of the challenges that come with highly stylized character designs in a photorealistic environment. This ambitious project aimed high with its new tools, but ultimately fell short due to severe visual dissonance.
Rather than creating each character for a more realistic environment, or alternatively designing an environment to suit them, the studio opted to animate stylized characters over an extremely realistic 3D environment (see Figure 2_61).
To the film’s credit, it complements its highly stylized character designs with a strong method of animation. The dinosaur characters especially move with a squash-and-stretch quality reminiscent of classic 2D animation (see Figure 2_64). This approach allows for more expressive movement, leading the characters themselves to feel more welcoming and comfortable — at least, in a vacuum.
The trouble arises when these cartoonish characters are shown moving through an extremely realistic natural environment. Its strengths in character design are undermined by an obvious disconnect where characters look as though they do not belong in their own settings, even with detailed lighting (see Figure 2_60). The result is a jarring visual experience that repeatedly breaks immersion, and at its worst can stray into uncanny territory.
In many cases, the film’s use of lighting further exacerbates this problem. Though technically impressive and visually appealing on its own (see Figure 2_59, 65), the advanced ray-tracing, shadow work, and atmospheric effects are wasted when paired with the stylized, less textured characters they interact with. If anything, the lighting highlights the disconnect between the characters and their world.
The film’s color suffers from a similar issue. While the characters are painted with an exaggerated palette that suits their cartoonish style, the realistic environments are comparatively subdued (see Figure 2_63, 64). While there are notable instances where this disconnect is remedied under certain lighting (2_65), the majority of the film struggles with color.
The handling of space and depth is problematic in a similar way. Backgrounds are frequently over-detailed compared with the more simplified characters. This creates visual noise throughout the world that can, at times, distract the eye from the actual subject matter. In fact, the film’s approach to texture as a whole may be its greatest underlying issue. The characters are not given the same realistic treatment as the environments they inhabit, and even if they were, this could stray into the same uncanny valley territory.
Conclusions
The Good Dinosaur serves as a critical reminder of how important it is to retain consistent visual style and hierarchy of elements. When a project begins with an intent to realistically render environments, its characters must be equally realistic or suffer continual visual disconnect. At best, these characters can only look subdued and less important than their background. At worst, they can appear eerily alien. The film’s technically impressive visual style actively works against its own narrative, continually distracting the viewer from the elements that should be most important to the viewing experience.
The film highlights the industry’s need to embrace a thoughtful, holistic approach to animation. A successful blending of 3D techniques with traditional animation principles demands more than technical proficiency; it requires a clear artistic vision that starts with the characters and works outward front here. While modern innovation can be useful to our visual art, it must be used strategically to complement stylized work without overwhelming it.
Toy Story 4 (2019)
Toy Story 4 represented a fairly significant milestone in Pixar's experimentation with advanced 3D animation techniques. This fourth installment came out in 2019, nearly a full decade following the release of its predecessor. The advancements in 3D animation tools during that time period informed much of its production and style.
The film makes strong attempts to preserve the style and charm of the original movies, and partially succeeds. Character designs remain almost entirely consistent between this film and previous installments, at least with the main, non-human characters. Certain character designs are elevated with the use of more advanced lighting, causing them to look more “toy-like,” which ultimately suits the story (see Figure 2_67).
The film’s environmental design is likewise impressive, serving to showcase both the strengths and pitfalls of more advanced rendering. Background props are lit and textured in a style that approaches photorealism, at times to a fault (see Figure 2_68, 70). While this works for certain situations, including the equally photorealistic cat (see Figure 2_70), it can begin to hinder the cohesion of central characters, which still retain a more cartoonish style.
In some ways, it seems as if Toy Story 4 struggles to tow the line between animation at live action rather than embracing its roots as a CGI property. Whereas the original films showed cartoonish characters interacting with a cartoonish environment, the fourth installment superimposes them over what closely resembles real-life scenery. This, coupled with extensively detailed lighting, can lead familiar characters to feel strange and uncanny (see Figure 2_68).
Still, lighting does play a positive role in the film’s visual style. The movie’s willingness to experiment with value in high-contrast scenes and silhouettes open up new possibilities of dramatization (see Figure 2_68). In the best cases, this can lead the scenes to feel more realistic in a way that blends well with its characters.
Animation throughout Toy Story 4 proves a high point for the franchise. Characters move with unprecedented fluidity and expressiveness that builds on the strengths of the earlier films. However, there are notable instances where new characters (especially those with non-traditional designs, like Forky) feel inconsistent compared with the established animation style of classic characters (see Figure 2_74).
Texture throughout the film is a double-edged sword, resulting in nearly as much dissonance as it seeks to resolve. Though texturing on main characters like Woody and Buzz is refined enough to bolster their preexisting appeal, the hyper-realistic texture on figures like the cat (see Figure 2_70) and supporting characters (see Figure 2_67) create notable dissonance when appearing in the same scene, particularly during close-ups.
Conclusions
Toy Story 4 aptly demonstrates both the vast potential and unforeseen limitations of more advanced 3D animation techniques. Without a doubt, it pushes the boundaries of what was possible for previous films in its franchise. At the same time, however, certain elements of the film struggle to feel grounded in what has become a more realistic world than the once-familiar setting of Toy Story (see Figure 2_71, 72). For all its challenges, the film’s strict adherence to its original character designs is commendable. A more appropriate execution might involve employing more stylized textures to definitively stylized characters, as well as bending the shape-language of background elements which feel too stiffly realistic for the characters who interact with them. Still, the film’s overall visual experience is impressive and mostly successful in that it presents its audience with a comparable charm to that of the original films.
Soul (2020)
Disney/Pixar’s Soul (2020) represents a unique case study in the application of 3D animation techniques, especially surrounding its approach to a juxtaposed normal world alongside a highly abstracted realm. While the “soul” world achieves nearly perfect stylization across its many elements, this critique will focus on the film’s representation of the real world and the challenges it faces in balancing stylization with realism.
In the film’s depiction of the normal world, Pixar demonstrates its iconic blend of stylized character designs with a tendency toward environmental realism. The character designs feature a bold caricature-esque style reminiscent of traditional animation (see Figure 2_75, 80). Through exaggeration of different facial features, the characters manage to feel both highly stylized and distinct from one another.
As with the other examples of struggling films, however, Soul struggles primarily with environmental design. It should be noted that this is true only in regards to the film’s “real world,” as the world of the souls is decidedly more stylized and cohesive. The normal world is quite realistic with detailed textures applied to clothing, hair, animals, and environmental props. In certain cases, this creates a subtle, yet noticeable disconnect between the shape language of the characters and the realistic scenery (see Figure 2_76).
The film’s approach to color and lighting in its normal world balances varying levels of contrast to achieve heightened emotional tone, especially through use of silhouettes and shadows (see Figure 2_82).
In particular, the music-centric scenes demonstrate an even more abstracted use of color and light, which are used to emphasize the emotional weight (see Figure 2_82). This fluctuation between realistic and abstract lighting is mostly successful, serving to infuse key moments with a sense of the extraordinary, subtly connecting the realistic world with the “soul” world.
Throughout the realistic world, however, the animation tends to lean toward rigidity, especially in character movements. There are notably fewer dynamic poses throughout Soul compared with other Pixar films, and even the more expressive gestures are relatively subdued (see Figure 2_75). However, the film’s placement of characters in the composition of each frame is a highlight of its style, successfully employing the techniques of live-action camera work — such as over-the-shoulder shots, the rule of thirds, and depth of field — in an animated world (see Figure 2_77, 79, 81).
Conclusions
Though the film struggles in certain areas with an overreliance on the realistic textures made possible by modern 3D animation tools, Soul manages to create a visually engaging experience for viewers throughout the film. Even during the sections of the story that take place strictly in a “real-world” setting, the lighting and shape language serve to convey a richly emotional story.
On the other hand, the film’s approach to realism highlights an ongoing challenge in blending stylized characters with more believable settings, even for studios like Pixar who stand at the forefront of animation technology. The film’s more realistic elements are clearly a creative choice by the animators to contrast with the more fantastical parts of the story. Still, these choices raise an interesting question: When it comes to juxtaposing visual styles, what extent can be reached before visual dissonance becomes an issue?
Soul stands as an example of experimentation with style, showcasing the potential of what animators can achieve by creatively overcoming visual obstacles. Through the thoughtful application of animation techniques in lighting, texture, and shape language, experimental films like Soul may continue to reach even higher levels of artistic brilliance and audience connection.
Conclusion
The case studies above serve to illuminate the complex relationship between technological innovation and emotional expression in modern animation. Toy Story 4, The Good Dinosaur, and Soul each showcase a comparable level of impressive technical prowess, yet succeed to varying degrees in connecting with their respective audiences.
The Good Dinosaur, which came out in 2015, exemplifies the greatest level of disconnect between hyper-realistic and abstracted visual styles. Toy Story 4, which released in 2019, showcases similar issues, albeit to a lesser extent. Soul, which seems to have placed less emphasis on realism even in its more lifelike scenes, struggles the least with visual dissonance. The films’ respective styles, though produced by the same animation studio, are vastly different. Their chronological relationship may indicate a slow progression of growth as Pixar continues to experiment with new styles over time.
These related examples each underscore the need for animators to find new ways of balancing their technological capabilities with their artistic intent. Films like Soul remind us that the most effective use of animation is not a showcase of innovation, but an avenue of emotional connection through visual storytelling. As the industry continues to evolve, we can look optimistically toward new technologies so long as we resolve to use them strategically in tandem with emotionally driven artistic style.
