Traditional Animation or Computer Animation?

Both of them, but i prefer the good old animation from my childhood. The hand drawn one are more original as ideas, the computer animation is with better technical quality.

Not a very good fan of Disney and its animated features. Computer animation or traditional are both good if you have a story to tell.
It is not the technique but essence.

All I can say is - I agree with you totally. The traditional hand drawn stuff is the best!

I prefer the older hand drawn films too.
Sometimes the newer ones are just too busy to be able to watch them comfortably.
I couldn't even tell you which ones are by disney anymore.
I think that they have become too obsessed with getting the film to look realistic and have forgotten these stories are for children who want a proper story line with a hopefully happy ending and are quite happy with Bambi and Dumbo in 2 dimensions.
Quite a lot of the recent films seem to be the same story with different characters and the only real difference is that the pictures are even more detailed than the one they last showed.

a topic close to my heart, as i used to be an animator. i have always despised computer animation, because it has so far yet to replicate the 'feeling' of traditional animation. there is something we call 'squash and stretch' in the animation world, and i wonder if computer animators with no traditional background even know what this is!;)
computers are getting closer at being able to replicate the squishiness of drawn characters or objects, but still lack that extra oomph!

i saw some incredible computer-assisted animations in my film history classes at school. they were way beyond what is being done now, and still retained the feeling of tradtional animation, since it was not a bunch of drawings scanned and worked on by computers. they were films created by traditional means, which employed computer technology to smooth out the movement, and not completely 'create' it from scratch, as they do nowadays.

some of the best digital anims i've watched are the lesser known ones. pixar's very first film was possibly the one with the most personality and appeal, even though the main character was a lamp!:)

as another mylotter already mentioned, what counts isn't so much the technique but the feeling of it all.

some crappily animated stuff still works on the whole, because the message is good, or the characters are loveable, etc.

i much prefer watching glitchy paintjobs with vibrating outlines than looking at the 'esthetically perfect' stuff 3D animators are turning out today.

some computer animation studios are innovating ways to create the same imperfect look that drawings might have. i worked on the film 'triplets of belleville' and this is exactly what the creator had in mind. we had traditional style fed through computers, some 2D programs and some 3D. the final result melds them almost seamlessly.

we had to alter the animation software to make it do what we wanted, ie: render images 'imperfectly' so that outlines were slightly broken, some 'scribbling' was apparent, etc.
maybe it's a trade secret i'm giving away, but the animation software company was angry with us because we didn't want to use their software as is. they refused to give us customer support because they had no idea how to help us with the 'new and improved' version of their program we'd come up with lol.

but in terms of disney, i lost interest when beauty and the beast came out:( i have never watched it, and the only newer disneys i've looked at are the lion king (years after it was released) and tarzan.

i love the look of the old mickey mouse cartoons, and the unrestored versions of the classics like snow white.