Why doesn't Disney won't use the money they make from

>>93066153

Because they're a business interested in making money. The money is in 3D films.

They closed almost all their traditional animation studios down more than a decade ago.

>>93066153
Why would they want to make something that could be a monetary failure to them?

their last two 2d animated movies were received terribly in theatres compared to the 3d ones like Tangled and Frozen, although its pretty clear that they sabotaged Pooh Bear(2011) on purpose

Who said anything about needing finances? It isn't a question of funding the movie, OP, it's a question of whether or not the movie will return the money spent on it, and further still, if that money could have been spent on something that would have returned even more.

>>93066153
what advantage would a 2D movie have over a 3D movie?
a lot of 3D disney movies are still animated using 2D schools of thought, and a lot of them have the same level of detail that they put into their classic movies
it sounds more like preference than anything else

>>93066153
Let me know when the mouse kicks in your door and slaps your bitch ass.

>>93066266
>Let me know when the mouse kicks in your door and slaps your bitch ass.

https://youtu.be/TF4_4g1B2Ug

>>93066180
I dunno, they made the BGF, TomorrowLand, Lone Ranger, John Carter, Sorcerer's Apprentice, and Prince of Persia and all of that together probably cost them a good $1 bil in flops, yet that hasn't seemed to deter them away from making even more live-action blockbusters.

>>93066232
>and further still, if that money could have been spent on something that would have returned even more.

This is why Infinity was canceled.

It was making very good money. But it wasn't making insanely good money.

>>93066345
I still don't know how South Park got away with this whole episode.

>>93066256

3D ages like milk, "eyepopping" is a gimmick and 2D can have variety of styles and effects that can't be really done in CGI (like transformations)

>>93066438
Because 2d animation is even less of a monetary success that Disney knows aren't wanted, except for a few enthusiasts, by the mass public. Live- action still prints.

Hell, they're turning their old 2d movies into 3d/live-action shit because they know it prints them money.

It's not that they can't afford to make 2D movies.

And it's not that 2D movies won't make them money.

it's that 2D movies won't make them as much as 3D movies will because the 'cartoons are for kids!' stigma is softer when it comes to 3D movies. And 3D movies can be churned out at a much faster rate than 2D movies.

>>93066256

That's like asking what advantage claymation has over cut-out animation. They're just different art styles. Though no style is inherently superior to the other, diversity is a good thing.

3D is simply easier to edit based on their focus grouping.

>>93066506
They'll probably continue with that formula, especially after Beauty and the Beast made back almost 8x its production budget.

>>93066438
Other live-action blockbusters are still successful, so it just makes Disney go "OK, what did those ones have that ours don't?" and try again.

There aren't successful 2D animated films to make them go after that.

>>93066153
Maybe they'll do it if that one 2D movie we're not allowed to talk about will be successful.

File: 1377965107061_image.jpg (150KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1280x720px

I'm totally fine with 3D CGI movies, I'm just frustrated every single 3D film ever has been the exact same dreamworks-esque marble eyed caricature artstyle. Vidya has been not just almost entirely 3D since the N64, but rendered in real time rather than being pre-rendered CGI, and it's had infinitely more aesthetic diversity.

Because original 2D films are too much of a risk for them in terms of money.

Of course they could theorically make a 2D film that's MCU or Star Wars related