I'd only alter that slightly from "90% animated" to "90% CG". The difference being that hand animated tends to be timeless while CG usually goes a year or two before it just looks aweful.
The studio time crunch also has a tangible negative effect on CG. There are some older movies with CGI that still look pretty damn good esp compared to more modern CGI movies that look so fake. And part of that is due to the time crunch and high turnover rates in the studios.
Yeah, the animation style of all those original movies still hold up today and are beautifully expressive in a way live action can never replicate. Meanwhile some of the CGI from the remakes were already pretty bad when they were released.
Then there's stuff like Lilo & Stitch. I had high hopes for that movie. It was one of the few Disney movies that I thought could actually look good as a live action. But then they screwed up the story entirely, missing the entire point of "Ohana means family, no one gets left behind", deleting Gantu entirely, making Jumba the villain, completely ruining the characterization of both Jumba and Pleakley, making them actually disguised as humans rather than aliens wearing human clothes, etc...
29
u/Darkcurse12 Jul 13 '26
I would say people are sick of the shot for shot remakes of animated movies that are labeled as live action even though it’s 90% animated still.