March 10, 2009
3D animation replacing timeless classics? A young girl begs to be freed from the ocean floor, all while bearing a fish tail. A Native American princess sprints to follow the boat of her lover. A golden-red sun rises high above the plains of Africa as a lion cub is proclaimed prince. These are several examples of the beautiful moments ferried into our minds from The Little Mermaid, Pocahontas, and The Lion King. What groups these films together, aside from their Disney affiliation, is the fact that they were created using 2D animation. The majority of recent animated features released to theatres have all been completed using computer generated imagery, or CGI. CGI helps to give these movies the 3D effect, which can be seen in movies like Shrek and Monsters, Inc. My “beef” with the animated movie industry is that making these movies seem more real may intrigue audiences, but the beauty and grace brought about by the 2D animated features of the 20th century cannot be beaten. Through studying the characters of the CGI films one can begin to see why audiences may assume that they are better than their second-
dimensional ancestors. For one, CGI characters are designed with the light in mind, making them appear to be shaded and to have more layers or look more real. I would not say this makes them any better than the shadow-less 2D figures. As apposed to having multiple “strands of hair” and a defined “collar bone,” the 2D characters are drawn to flow seamlessly. Their hair does not fall it cascades. And yes, they lack the shadows that would give some form of depth perception, but that makes them all the more glamorous. They exude a more complete reality; a form of perfection. That may be what made them more appealing. Why 2D animated films have been thrown on the cutting room floor, I do not know. However, why they are missed, I can understand. “They’re classics,” said sophomore Matt Babcock, “that’s simply why they’re better.” Though Babcock’s statement may seem vague at first, upon closer review, it actually could not make a clearer point.
www.Disney.com THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY has changed through its many years, while it continues to dominate the animation industry. Compared above are the Disney Princesses Aurora (left), from Sleeping Beauty (1959) and Rapunzel, from the upcoming CGI ﬁlm Disney’s Rapunzel (2010). The differences are clearly deﬁned. The old 2D films are classic, but what is to say that 20 years from now movies like Shrek will not be considered classic? I am nostalgic for the old ways of animation. Not just the visual aspects of the films, but also the atmosphere and story lines and music they carried with them. Alas, it boils down to a completely personal opinion.
Disney, as if to have heard my prayers, will be releasing a new film later this year entitled The Princess and the Frog and they will be doing so in traditional pencil and paper or second-dimensional animation. The corporation proposes that this is their last endeavor into the 2D world. All we are left to do is hope that it is anything but. ~Yianni Papadimos
Sexting teens should stop for own safety Boy meets girl. Boy and girl start dating. Girl texts half-naked picture of herself to boy on his phone for his birthday. Boy and girl break-up for whatever reason. Boy decides to take his revenge by sending the halfnaked picture of his ex-girlfriend to everybody he knows. Boy is charged with child-pornography. Girl is charged with indecent exposure and her reputation is ruined. Sadly, many girls nowadays are being exploited this way due to a new fad called “sexting”, which is basically boys and girls sending each other inappropriate messages and pictures via cellphone. Twenty percent of teenagers have admitted to “sexting”, according to www. cbsnews.com. As if the Internet
isn’t opportunity enough for people to expose themselves, sexting on a person’s phone allows them to have the dirty pictures and messages in the palm of their hand. That’s right; often times, these pictures are saved and can fall into the hands of anyone. The reason that most couples “sext” each other, is that they want to send each other a “sexy gift”. What happens when the couple breaks up and the pictures and messages end up elsewhere? The death of a reputation. Keep in mind that these pictures have the tendency to circulate. I respect that not every single person has the same values as one another, but documenting an explicit
picture of yourself is downright stupid. Take into account that relationships don’t last forever. What if you have a nasty break-up and the pictures end up elsewhere (as they often do)? And do not think that the person who receives the pictures and decides to take revenge on an ex by redistributing them gets the last laugh. Often, the distributers are charged with child pornography, setting a mark on their records. It’s a lose-lose situation for both sides once these pictures surface past the eyes of one person. Honestly, nothing good comes out of these photos except for a few minutes of instant gratification. It is a free country and people are
allowed to make their own choices, but they need to be smart about what they are doing. Do you really want to run the risk of exposing yourself to everyone that you know? Preaching to people to keep their clothes on would only be useless, as when people are told not to do something, it normally doubles their inclination to actually go ahead and do it. So instead, I’m asking you to first reconsider your values as well as your dignity. Does it really seem intelligent to expose yourself in a place where your moment in time can be saved, and easily, even with the accidental push of the wrong button, give everyone a taste of your so-called gift? ~Sarah Fatemi