>>10141974>The thing I don't get is, how do you grow out of anime and towards realism?
You don't. If you want realism, you use actors and film. Animation exists to render the impossible in rich artistic fidelity: robots the size of galaxies, time-traveling high schoolers, space operas, batshit insane criminals with televisions for heads. Take a look at any serious top ten list for any form of animation and nothing on it will be possible with straight film.
And since it's been mentioned a few times, 3D/CG animation. It's powerful stuff, but it really exists to partner with film. The uncanny gap is rarely bridged, making it much more feasible to have human actors with rendered scenery.
There are some 3D animations I've seen that are quite good: Fifty Percent Gray, Destruct, and just about all of Blur Studio's works. The problem is that it is treated by big animation studios as a replacement for 2D animation, trying to fit the aesthetics of 2D into 3D. Stretch-and-squash is NOT a good choice for CG. Quote me on that.
Film renders what is. CG renders what could be. Animation renders what will never be.>>10142135
Excellent movie, yes. But what would it have been like if they were freed from the constraints of actors? Melding the two lowers the potential to the lowest common denominator - film. The actors limit the characters, and the scenery is limited by what can be set up.>>10142066>So are photographs now more "realistic" than drawings?