Well yes Up I can understand, but Madasgcar (like a lot of dreamworks stuff) has a much more prominent element of slapstick, so I'm wondering why something like the camera move you guys mentioned would be so jarring. (I'm just using these movies as examples cause they're the ones you guys brought up and hey, they're good examples)

I think another part of it is a trend I've sort of noticed, where 3D inherently is treated as something much closer to film than it is to classically done animations. So it seems to me (and I'm just going from what I've witnessed, your mileage may vary) that 3D animations feel restricted and limited by this expectation of realism. I don't know if that's a simple product of the way the 3D pipeline works coupled with a sort of mob consensus of what 3D "should be" or if the slapsticky thing doesn't work the same when done in 3D (I'm just guessing on that one, because I haven't seen enough 3D animations done in that style to make a judgment call.)

As for the emotional investment. I feel the same amount of attachment (If not even more, because I just think it's a better movie) to Kuzco and Pacha as I do to Carl and Russell.

nvm

Brian wins.

Also, Madagascar is more an example of the type of camera move rather than a really frustrating use of it. For me, anyway.

Like everything else, it's a balance. You can have slapstick moments in an otherwise affecting story. It's just a matter of how much you put on each side of the scale. If it's nothing but slapstick all the time, then you won't genuinely affect your audience. And the more slapstick there is, the more your audience will be subconsciously clued, "This isn't real, it's just a show."

Well, one speculative answer might be because you don't engage on a physics level with a cartoon and you do with most 3D animated movies.

When I was referring to "real" earlier, I was speaking in the suspension of disbelief sense, not the visual sense, that you believe these are real people going through a real emotional experience. As opposed to funny characters standing on a stage to make you laugh. The more they act like funny characters on a stage, the less you will believe they could be real people going through a real experience and thus, the less you'll empathize with what they're going through.

Again, don't recall the conversation, but I've used the Madagascar zoom as an example of a type of camera movement that can be used inappropriately, not as an inappropriate use.

Are we still talking about crash zooms and impossible camera moves? My problem is with something that is trying to seem physically plausible and realistic going in for one of those gimmicks, not cartoons.

Yeah, I'm not completely onboard with myself as paraphrased there. In cartoons it doesn't bug me so much.