Is it because they all failed? All-star casts too much money?
Where the fuck else am I going to watch Matt Damon and Ron Perlman in the same movie? Or Disney doing something original again?
Maybe it's me being extremely nostalgic, but I miss when movies and the like took risks and did something other than rehashing 3D movies over and over again.
>>83974689
IIRC it's just because 3D sells, simple as that. No real differences in costs, production time, etc.
Just settle down and make your own stuff. Watch some anime, watch some cartoons, save up the old stuff for when that movie you remember fondly is inevitably super obscure and hard to find.
>>83974722
In general, production time is shorter for CG movies. When studios worked with 2D traditional animation there was a pipeline of work, where things at the end of the pipeline had been in the works for 4 to 6 years at least. That time has been reduced to 2 - 4 years with CG animation. Also it's easier to change things later in the game with CG than it was with traditional.
>>83974689
Honestly dude, watch anime. I know Ghibli does all star cast for their dubs, specially Miyazaki.
>>83974722
I feel like it's a misconception in Hollywood. Good writing sells the movie, not 3D. Princess and the Frog failed because it wasn't a good movie and hitting the right demographic. If they were to make Frozen or Big Hero 6 in 2D, promote them correctly, they'll probably do great too.
>>83974689
Well, Anon, let's look at the equation.
Equation for a natural 2D film:
Final Cost = equipment cost + amount of labored workers(average pay(hours of pay)) + marketing costs + safeguarding + housing
Equation of a 3D film:
Final costs = Render Farm + amount of workers (average pay(hours of pay)) + marketing costs + safeguarding + housing
No real difference? You would be right.
Although, the amount of quality you can get from 3D easier makes it a more enticing offer. Things like perspective, physics, and inbetweening are automated; the average 3D animator essentially diddles in keyframes.
This doesn't detract from their work, but it does simplify something that is integral in today's market. Realism.
Everything has to be 100%. Blame rap, the internet, or natural evolution, the average individual needs things to be "real" in order for it to be enticing. It's in games, it's in shows, and despite the cartoony exterior, 3D helps kids movies bring in that realism in a way that would appeal to a 10-year old kid.
3D animation is more flexible, you can divide the labor more easily and have more people working on it at once, and skilled workers are more commonly available. That's my impression anyway. 3D isn't cheaper though, and in fact costs significantly more than 2D for whatever reason.
I think people were tired of the same old Disney formula, it didn't appeal to adults as well as the new breed of 3D movies, and there's probably less of a stigma towards 3D animation because it's not associated with cartoons.
It wasn't a problem with 2D animation itself, but just the way it had been made in the US.
>>83975647
On the other hand they did make different kinds of movies like Atlantis and Treasure Planet, but they failed to make a difference. Maybe it was too late by then.
2D Adventure films provide only modest returns (at least partially because of a stigma against 2D films and being for children), and big studios are all about big money. Why waste the manpower producing something that makes you $10 million when you could use the SAME manpower to make $20 million?
Adjusted for inflation, Treasure Planet cost $187 million and Atlantis cost $122-163 million. They had runtimes of 95 and 96 minutes. Steamboy cost $25 million and had a runtime of 126 minutes.
I wonder what they spent all that money on. Even differences in salaries can't account for such a difference.
>>83974722
That may not be the case anymore. Hollywood has had its worst box office this year in a century. Critics are saying that (surprise!) the big studios focused too much on remakes and profiting off of nostalgia. This may be the wake up call for some up and coming directors to push for new forms of visual entertainment.
>>83976678
What actually happens is when studios do well, they don't take risks and maximise profits on the successful formula, and when studios do poorly, they don't take risks because they can't afford more losses. Studios simply do not fucking try new things anymore, regardless of the financial situation.
Also 2D is dead because it doesn't fit the current technological media narrative. In the minds of the general audience, putting out 2D animation now is like if you made a black&white silent film with a live orchestra playing the score at showings. People would just ask: "Why wasn't this made with CGI? We have 'better' tools now, why would you do it the old way?". One aesthetic is seen as superior because it's more recent, more in tune with the digitalisation of society, you'll just waste energy trying to argue against that logic.
