Will animation ever go back to 2D?
>>64316030
Japan
>>64316090
Maybe I should make myself clearer
Will western animation ever go back to 2D?
>>64316141
No. It's too expensive. Disney's last 2d film 'Princess and the Frog' flopped which about did 2d in over here.
I don't expect to see big buget 2d. Maybe some indie films, but that's all.
>>64316030
I wasn't even aware animation went over to 3D
>>64316313
Princess and the Frig did quite well actually. It was Winnie the Pooh that flopped hard, most likely because it was 2011 and nobody gives a shit about Winnie the Pooh these days.
>>64316313
Is 2D animation really more expensive than 3D animation? I would have thought it would be the opposite.
>>64316313
This. It's now cheaper to produce 3D features. The era of 2D animation is kill.
>>64316333
well 90% of animation is using 3d models so pretty much but there's still plenty of great 2D efforts
>>64316382
It's about the same.
>>64316333
It doesn't mean "3D" like 3D glasses, it means 3D like The Incredibles or Frozen or whatever.
2D would be like Robin Hood or Winnie the Pooh's Grand Adventure.
>>64316382
depends on the quality and style of either
I know an episode of Adventure Time or Family Guy is almost 1 million an episode
>>64316508
But 97.3% of that money goes to the voice talent. Those things are animated on the cheap.
>>64316313
its a shame because all these studios are now focusing on making 3d films with almost the exact same art style
>>64316637
This is what upsets me the most
Does anyone have that pic of either Pixar or Disney (I can't remember the company) recent main character faces that are almost 100% sameface?
2d >>> 3d
2d has less mistake than 3d
>will Animation ever shift back from CGI to traditional?
morans
>>64316030
Frozen was the nail in the coffin for American 2D animation.
>>64316637
Wrong. Look at the Peanuts movie. Paperman. Inside Out.
>>64316745
Then explain why 2d storytelling never raised their bar past the 90's? 3D has more deeper characters and plots. Those are just the facts.
>>64316856
>3D has more deeper characters and plots.
That has nothing to do with the animation style
2D tradition animation looks so much better than 3D in my opinion.
I don't think consumers care enough though to go back to a more painstaking, time consuming method of animation.
It's a real shame. 2D feels like a real art. 3D feels like totally soulless consumer tripe.
>>64317013
>2D tradition animation looks so much better than 3D in my opinion.
I agree, I think you can do a lot more with 2D animation than 3D animation. Or at least people using 2D have done more.
>2D feels like a real art. 3D feels like totally soulless consumer tripe.
I wouldn't say that. 3D only feels that way because nobody has really used its full potential. Every 3D animated movie seems to prefer playing safe with already popular styles.
>>64316879
But the problem is people thinking 3D is somehow better than 2D when neither is true, they are both their own thing and really it should be about the merits of the individual films themselves. I like both visually. But story wise 2D needs to push the envelope for once.
I haven't even watched a 3D CGI animated movie since Toy Story 2. They are all total shit eye cancer.
>>64316030
only in Europe, Japan, and indie films
>>64316856
>more deeper
Pleb confirmed. 2d storytelling peaked during Disney's 90s renaissance and in Japan's 80s-late 90s era. Legend of the Galactic Heroes, 08th MS team, Beauty/Beast, Aladdin, Lion King etc etc.....
>tfw you'll never witness that 2d godhood ever again
>>64317075
2D = 4chan
3D = reddit/tumblr
>>64317147
barring Toy Story I'd say this is true.
>inb4 a billion NEET fanwanks at Frozen
>>64317075
>But story wise 2D needs to push the envelope for once.
What do you mean? 2D hasn't been used in Western animation in a while but you can find plenty of epic stories of 2D animation in Western animation and Japanese anime.
>>64317147
Please do not derail the thread like this
>>64317062
>I think you can do a lot more with 2D animation than 3D animation
Can you elaborate? 2D is always more restrictive when it comes to camera movement compared to 3D. Also you can animate more articulate and complex character designs with physics and with greater detail. What can you do a lot more with 2D?
>>64317147
What does that even mean? Fucking imbecile.
>>64317195
more details without fucking up as much.
>>64317106
Are we posting great 2d film now?
>>64317221
back to reddit
>>64316382
>>64316477
2D is far, far cheaper to produce than 3D.
But it makes nowhere near as much box office. Because it's old fashioned rather than shiny and new and made with COMPUTERS which means it's the cutting edge of technology, and that pulls in way more audiences.
>>64317249
Calling that an animation is just a formality. Rotoscoping doesn't count anon.
>>64317229
But I just explained that 3D allows you to put more detail.
>>64317289
I believe 2d just takes more time to produce than 3d.
>>64316313
>Princess and the Frog
Some real "we wuz kingz n shit" cuck cinema right there. A black princess? C'mon
>>64317195
>2D is always more restrictive when it comes to camera movement compared to 3D
I don't think that is necessarily true. 2D animation does seem to have a restriction on "camera movement" though if that's what you mean. 2D animation relies more on wide scope scenes from a still POV.
>Also you can animate more articulate and complex character designs with physics and with greater detail.
I think you can do that just as well with 2D though. There are some very complex designs in both 3 and 2D, 2D relies more on shading and outline than 3D due to its 2D nature instead of 3D though. Physics in animation can be tweaked any way you want unlike real life so I think that's a moot point.
>What can you do a lot more with 2D?
Honestly I'm not sure how to answer this. I suppose it comes down to style and perception of animation. You always know how there's a certain way 2D is animated and you always know how there's a certain way 3D is animated. They look and are perceived very differently. I guess that part is mostly preference.
>>64316856
>Then explain why 2d storytelling never raised their bar past the 90's? 3D has more deeper characters and plots. Those are just the facts.
Comedy Animal Dance Party movie no. 34 does not have deeper characters and plots. Where are you pulling this from?
Stop Motion is clearly king in that regard. Where is the Mary and Max or Anomalisa of CGI animation?
>>64317406
Whenever I see a 2D animation try to over render their characters and do advanced camera stuff with 3D plates it somehow makes it look worse than if they just stuck to 2D conventions
>>64316382
Probably. It takes about 3 years to produce and up until the advent of Flash was all done by hand.
>>64316382
Do you mean hand drawn 2D or digital 2D? Digital 2D is dirt cheap compared to hand drawn, and probably cheaper than 3D because you don't have to deal with lighting and rendering and large mainframes to process it all.
>>64317480
I agree
2D doing what 2D does best, still shots with consistent angles and expansive POV, is what makes it look good.
Also mixing 2D and CGI rarely looks good. The CGI typically looks out of place.
>>64317433
Just compare Princess Frog to How to Train Your Dragon. There are no stupid singalong scenes that divert from the story. There's no obnoxiously cardboard two dimensional one note characters aside from the main protagonsit, like every 2D animated movie ever made by Disney. They still didn't learn it's no longer the 60's and you can't get away with those tried formulas from yesteryear. Western 2D will make a come back if only they actually bother to push the envelope, yeah? Hold them up to the same standard as Pixar which they currently don't.
>>64317433
Probably because stop motion is looked at as more left. Ever since Nightmare Before Christmas, stop motion as always been used for less mainstream stories.
Tbh stuff like Fantasic Mr. Fox or Coraline would look garbage in cgi anyways.
>>64317648
Disney 2D animation fell into that formula of story then song then more story way too much. It's consistent across most of their films.
>>64317648
>there are no stupid singalong scenes that divert from the story
Because it's not a musical, dumbass, and they don't divert from the story, they add to it.
>>64317195
>What can you do a lot more with 2D?
Deformation of the character, for one. Far more expressive. CGI characters have tools built for the animation, rigs that restrict what they're capable of. If an animator wants to do something beyond the capabilities of the software, they'll have to wait for the engineers to custom-write a script that enables them to reach their goal. That could take god knows how long.
Meanwhile a 2D animator just draws what they need it to look like and it's done.
CGI movie production always have a huge research and development phases which are simply nowhere near as necessary for 2D animation
>>64317249
>>64317195
Watch this movie
>>64317786
>Far more expressive
Wrong. 3D can do anything 2D can but better.
> If an animator wants to do something beyond the capabilities of the software, they'll have to wait for the engineers to custom-write a script that enables them to reach their goal.
This might be true two decades ago when CG tools were fairly new, but you can pretty much do anything in Maya these days without even knowing how to Hello World.
>Meanwhile a 2D animator just draws what they need it to look like and it's done.
Suuure, but can they draw it to say, pic related quality for every frame? Exactly.
>>64317957
>3D can do anything 2D can but *different
FTFY
>Suuure, but can they draw it to say, pic related quality for every frame?
Yes
>>64317872
I will watch this, mostly because it looks like it could be a Space Dandy spinoff movie.
>>64317987
As a technical possibility, sure but not in the real world where you don't want to spend more than a few years and a few hundred million.
>>64317957
>>64317195
CGI will not be able to produce animation like this for a long time. The expressiveness and stylization is in the pure linework, not just the design of the cartoon character's face.
The CGI equivalent of manipulating an overall style just seems to be the qualty of the rendering. The characters might be close to real looking, or a CGI bunny, but the CGI industry always seems to strive for photorealism in the rendering rather than anything else. Hell, even in ostensibly cartoony CGI movies I've noticed there's rarely any stylization in the designs at all outside of the heads of the characters.
>>64317987
I'm not dismissing 2D don't get me wrong, I fucking love it. But from a purely technical standpoint there is simply more 3D can do for the final result.
>>64318271
Well you proved me wrong with my 3D can do everything 2d can point. But I still think it's true that 3D allows much greater detail both in the visuals and the animations. Who knows, maby at some point your webm will be completely replicable in 3D.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R99JXucNFcc
>>64317987
3d looks much more photo realistic. Movies like The Lego Movie and Legend of the Guardians. But that's from a pure quality of image stand point.
2d and stop motion just have better stories and more thought put into them.
>>64318451
>3D allows a much greater detail both in visuals and animations
If that's true, why haven't we seen it yet? Most 3D movies tend to use very plain textures and flat colors with little variation in character styles across single series or movies.
For a quick example, emotions. Emotions are typically conveyed simplistically in 3D, with maybe one wrinkle over an eyebrow to show surprise and such. 2D animations seem to go much further than that using the same surprised emotion, such as increased eye size, quivering eyes, many thick lines to denote wrinkles, etc etc.
3D hasn't seen it's most complexity yet. It stays very plain.
>>64316313
yeah it flopped because it was 2d
what about CG that kills everything "3D" about it?
excuse weeb shit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhGjCzxJV3E
>>64318451
and getting it to look that way takes a lot of extra work, while looking that way for 2D animation is already an innate aspect of the medium.
Starting with 2D and working up makes a lot more sense than starting with 3D and working down, wouldn't you say?
>>64318882
case in point:
https://vimeo.com/126287950
>>64318854
>dem beautiful black DSLs
Someone photoshop in a cock
>>64316030
Old fashioned 2D is dead but digital 2D is still much cheaper and generally looks much better than 3D.
>>64318931
>>64318451
Now these are good examples of 3D animation that is detailed better than the typical 3D animation.
>>64318882
>>64318880
>>64318451
Why are animators so determined to avoid actually drawing anything nowadays?
>>64316382
2D animation is far more time-consuming.
With 3D animation, you make a bunch of models and copy/paste them into scenes and add animations, which are often created based on mocap data anyway.
With 2D animation you have to draw every single frame of the movie by hand and then color every single frame of the movie by hand.
That's not to say 3D animation doesn't require talent and work, but a lot of the effort is front-loaded because of how 3D models can be re-used by simply copying computer files and animated with mocap data or keyframes.
So given the same budget and talent, the 2D movie would take longer to make. That means paying animators and other crew for additional hours, which means the 2D movie's budget would be broken. And since 2D animation isn't popular now that's really bad because it means it's basically guaranteed not to make its money back, so they may as well have made it 3D and saved time and money while increasing their gross income in addition.
2D just no longer makes economical sense for movie studios.
>>64319048
The Klaus teaser isn't 3D animation
>>64318324
Good fluid animation is impossible for 3D because the amount of rigging required for it would be insane. What we have now in 3D film is physics based realistic fluids and FX next to fantasy characters. It can't compare to a Miyazaki film where the water and air actually has soul to it.
>>64319262
>With 3D animation, you make a bunch of models and copy/paste them into scenes and add animations, which are often created based on mocap data anyway.
>With 2D animation you have to draw every single frame of the movie by hand and then color every single frame of the movie by hand.
You realise neither 2D nor 3D productions are made by a single person, right? Tasks are given to different people.
>>64319303
Hm. It looked 3D.
>>64316030
Nope. costs more money, takes more time, and requires artistic talent.
>>64316313
Princess and the frog flopped because it featured a filthy negroid as a protagonist.
>>64319450
2D takes a fraction of the cost. It also rakes in a fraction of the cash.
>>64319236
Xrd is a video game, and as such, benefits from the use of 3D physical models.
The Lengths they went to, to achieve the desired effect was almost twice as intensive than actually using 2D animation
>>64319431
I believe the door and some misc aspects are 3D.
I also heard rumors that the lighting is done via a computer program but I don't know if this is true
>>64319402
That's irrelevant to anything I said. It doesn't matter who does each step or how many people work on each step, I was just outlining the steps themselves. 3D animation still saves time for the reasons I stated and time is money. Give a 2D movie and a 3D movie the same production timeframe and the 2D movie will need a bigger staff to complete at the same time as the 3D movie. Bigger staff means paying more people to work, which is equivalent to paying less people to work longer.
I can pay one person for 16 hours of work, or I can pay two people 8 hours of work each. Either way, 16 hours worth of pay is coming out of my pocket, I'll just have it finished sooner with 2 people working simultaneously. So again, the number of people working on a film is irrelevant to my point because I was speaking of working hours in terms of how many hours of work you must pay for. Whether that's paid to 50 people or 5000 people the only thing that will change is the production timeline, not the budget.
>>64319466
checked
>>64319495
>The Lengths they went to, to achieve the desired effect was almost twice as intensive than actually using 2D animation
Do you have a citation for that or are you just pulling assumptions out of your ass?
>>64319647
watch the video, they explain everything they did to achieve an almost 1:1 visual
Well at least we'll always have Japan
>>64316030
doesn't matter, animation has been dead since the 90s. It's all soulless garbage now, and has been since before most /tv/ browsers were born. Disney produced a legion of great films and then corroded into a formula.
2D vs. 3D doesn't matter when all that's written is the same old same old.
>>64316090
Japan don't even do traditional 2D any more, they do 2D completely on a computer.
>>64316366
It's sad because Winnie the Pooh(2011) was actually great.
The Princess and the Frog was the like chance they had
When Lasseter, who has a love for Gibli and animation in general because CCO of Disney, he promised new 2D animations every two years.
So he commissioned Musker and Clements to make Princess and the Frog. Unfortunately it was a pandery, sjw affair and nobody wanted to see a black princess with an obvious political agenda, especially in international markets.
This also coincided with Gibli turning to shit.
So basically Disney and Gibli both faltered at the exact wrong time, as animu in the East moved away from childlike affairs and animation in the west moved to generic 3D spectacle and both companies could no longer afford to finance 2D feature projects.
It doesn't help that Bluth also went old and crazy at the turn of the century when 3D began to take over and the Disney renaissance petered out with shit after shit.
Basically it's the fault of over the hill hacks and sjws that we lost one of the greatest art mediums of all time.
>>64321635
Photographing or scanning a drawing doesn't make for much of a difference in the long run. It's still a drawing.
>>64321785
i didn't see that stupid movie because every fucking character was ripped straight from The Proud Family, and I found that show to be annoying as fuck
We need another Fantasia.
Fantasia would be a valid excuse to do at least a few 2D animated segments They'd probably reuse Sorcerer's Apprentice again too.
>>64321785
Most of Disney's movies about "different cultures" in the 90s were financially successful, even if they weren't as huge financial/critical successes as Beauty and the Beast/The Lion King.
Interestingly enough, Pocahontas and The Princess and the Frog are both liked and disliked by SJWs, disliked because of the sugarcoating and historical inaccuracy (Tiana has a white friend in 1910s Louisiana lol).
I don't think "SJW's" are really to blame. I think it's more the fact that traditional animation had already faded out of mainstream, Disney's previous movies were shit (Chicken Little, Home on the Range, Dinosaur) so people weren't nearly as hyped, and Tangled was the first time most people saw a Disney movie with pop-out 3D so it overshadowed TPATF. And SJWs had nothing to do with Winnie the Pooh bombing.
>>64321875
You know there already was another Fantasia, right?
>>64321875
>>64321997
I'd like to see a third Fantasia that makes use of traditional 2D animation, 3D CG animation, the Paperman style, and stop-motion/claymation.
