>>79772914 I'd argue with the amount of CGI the Warcraft movie has it might contend, but for pure animation yeah.
Zootopia is furry bait. Moana will succeed or fall based solely on The Rock's performance. Dory is vaporware KFP3 is apparently pretty okay, not as distinct as 1 or as solid as 2. Angry Birds is "Muslim immigration is bad" meme worthy. Secret Life of Pets looks like GARBAGE Norm is just... bad. The Trolls movie may just be trolling... not very confident in that though. Ice Age 5 will be terrible, but it will be redeemed if Ice Age 6 has Nazi Zombies.
>>79777345 >Seriously, why do movie makers dump like 95% of their budgets on stupid computer generated nonsense that ends up hurting them financially? Because when it's successful, it's extremely successful.
>>79783774 >>79784500 Here's another list that could be useful. http://www.animationeurope.com/inproduction.asp Of course, they're mostly European. It's a nice site if you want to check out more there. It's how I heard of Longway North.
>>79779928 He's not wrong that it's expensive, and unfortunately is the reason that there are so few independent CGI feature films. Even cheap, bubbly and cheaply textured stuff like Despicable Me will set you back 80 million dollars, and that's when they already have the equipment and render farms.
The reason Rock and Rule or Heavy Metal or some such were able to get off the ground back in the day is that, simply put, 2D was so much cheaper. Stuff like The Little Mermaid was only 18 million, which was less than a new Aliens movie cost. Even adjusted for inflation, Beauty And the Beast, one of the most technically beautiful movies that was trying out brand new technology still clocks in under 70 million, less than Minions cost.
A startup company, back in the 80's or 90's, could make this kind of stuff happen. Don Bluth could make Secret of Nimh for pennies, but try that with CGI and, well... you probably can guess how that ends up.
He's laughably wrong that it sets them back financially, it's actually a rather safe bet all around. Even shit like The Nut Job can be a success in this climate, and the failures are fairly rare. So rare that when Pixar made failure with a feature some 20+ years in, it was a shock to everyone.
It's a shame, but it's a sad reality that CGI is prohibitively expensive nowadays.
>>79787969 I doubt it. It hasn't always been that way, either. Remember "the Dark Age" wasn't called that because of the movies, but because of the profits garnered. Higher highs beget lower lows. We'll see something give way. And I'm just going to keep pirating their shit until it does.
>>79791996 The "reason" is that mostly bad pitches but more so bad marketing were responsible for a lot of the 2D film flops of the early 2000s.
Most 2D Dreamworks movies were either historically based or based on religion, which is fine but doesn't attract the crowds it used to. Take Pocahontas for example.
The Iron Giant especially stands out as an early example, but The Princess and the Frog was also a "failure" in that it didn't attract the crowds it did (a lot of that due to the title containing the word "princess".)
PatF's not printing money resulted in the rushed transition of Frozen from a 2D to a CGI movie. Combine that with the relative success of both Pixar movies and the movies that Dreamworks/Blue Sky/etc were getting, the rest is kind of history.
I'd hate to call it self-sabotage, but a lot of the premises put out for 2D movies in that period were fairly outdated.
If it had been Big Hero 6 that was 2D instead of Winnie the Pooh, complete with over-the-top action reminiscent of anime, I'm sure that it would have made just as much money.
But yet again, it's mostly money reasons. If a 2D animated movie comes out that makes LOADSAMONEY, then it might persuade big studios to take another look. But as it is, CGI is what sells, so everyone will be doing it until people get sick of it. Which, in turn, isn't the best environment for a 2D movie to garner enough attention to be considered a runaway success. It's a vicious cycle.
>>79792203 Yeah, you can. That's not what the post is about. Large, influential studios that set the pace for the rest of the American animation industry don't want to touch /anything/ 2D with a ten-foot pole.
>>79792258 I'd say so. Most of the 2D animated films that have been released this decade have come from either Europe or Japan, with some South America I think.
Foreign films are already a niche market to Americans.
The only ones that really are known to Americans have been distributed and advertised by American companies. Which is why a Miyazaki movie will garner more familiarity with the average American than, say, The Secret of Kells. This is worsened if there isn't already an English dub.
>>79792258 There's no evidence to that effect. If you can regularly get stop motion animation to turn a profit on the big screen, then the only thing preventing traditional animation is corporate superstition.
It's also possible that with so few high-budget traditional films made in the past decade that the pool of truly high-quality animators is dwindling.
>>79788370 >Disney could sustain its wealth with the amount of Latino kids buying cars backpacks alone.
Fucking this. At this point, Disney movies are pretty much just advertisements for merch and their theme parks. Not to say that their films don't usually make a gorillion fucking dollars at the box office but between them, just the merch from just Frozen and Cars could fund half a dozen sequels in each franchise.
>>79792348 >the pool of truly high-quality animators is dwindling.
You're a couple decades behind the times; the technical chops for 2D animation is effectively no longer a living tradition in the US. The last generation of really good animators is either dead or retired and their skills died with them because they had nobody to pass the torch to.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.