Realism in animation

Andrew Gordon from Spline Doctors raised some interesting questions today about the future of animation and its relationship with high definition formats. Does animation need to get more detailed as hi-def becomes the standard?

After thinking about it, I guess I'd have to say that it depends on the animation. The amazing thing about cartoons has always been the range of styles, the freedom of expression that can't be achieved with live action alone. Animation doesn't have to be "realistic" to be entertaining. Just watch any 6 year old as they enjoy a Looney Tunes short and you can see that some animation withstands the test of time regardless of how high the resolution on the television gets. Does Bugs Bunny need to be modelled in 3D with all of his individual hairs showing, in order to keep being funny?

On the other hand, animation used for special effects should definitely evolve with technology. The visuals we are able to accomplish now are already blurring the line between reality and fantasy, and that line will only become more hazy with time. After all, the goal of SFX animation in relation to live action is to fuse seamlessly with actors and the "real world." If it is done poorly, the result is jarring and pulls the viewer out of the suspension of disbelief.

Of course, sometimes that jarring effect is exactly what the director wants (think Mirrormask).

So, back to the question; does animation need to be more detailed with hi-def? I think it WILL become more detailed, sure, but I don't think it necessarily NEEDS to be. I'm thinking in particular of the example of art, back when the first photography was introduced. Art kind of went two ways: those that tried to mimic the detail of photography with ultra-realism, and those that went their own route completely separate from reality all together. I think that as long as the story is strong, whatever style that story lends itself to will work, whether it be stylized limited animation or super-realistic hi-def movement.