Miss my CGI self yet?

Hey look, it's that movie Disney copies over and over since 2011.

Also, no, your big green cgi eyes are the reason I saw your movie only once.

I honestly don't understand

>have all assets from a movie
>have an in house 3d animation studio
>do the tv series in 2d instead

I mean yay for trad animation I guess, but why not hand over the series to the 3d studio's b team... interns? ... whatever?

>>91940001
have fun rendering that hair for a TV show

>>91940001
I for one think that show has a much nicer artstyle, in fact it's the prettiest looking show airing at the moment

File: ;_;.png (1MB, 1754x758px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1754x758px

>>91938964
Every day.

>>91940054

I'm sure they've got processing power to spare at Disney. Tangled is what, 7 years old now? I'm sure Moore's law hasn't completely stopped yet.

And she had short brown hair at the end of the movie, they could've gone with that (Okay okay not really...)

But, you can cut corners in 3d animation just like you can in 2d, I just have to wonder about the internal politics, all those in house assets and development... odd

the 2D serie is amazing, you'd know if you weren't a "currentyear" enslaved sack of shit.

>>91940300
Even if they'd double the processing time it would still require a dozen hour per frame. You little shits have no idea of the technology involved.

Wait, is that airing already?

Actually no, not at all.

>>91940394
>You little shits have no idea of the technology involved.

I have rigged, modeled animated and rendered (And been paid for) enough 3d animation, and hand drawn and scanned enough cels on goddamn paper pegs to know that labour is still the main cost and that computer time is cheap, especially with a goddamn movie's worth of ready made assets so fuck you, you know it all wanker.