Why has 2 animation died in the movie industry?

File: f1930fa6bd4b0ea47c0968787e69f18c.gif (598KB, 500x330px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 500x330px

>>93355347
>2
fuck I meant 2d

>>93355347
>>93355357

My balls itch.

>>93355347
The wanted to prevent an entire generation from being attracted exclusively to 2D women.

>>93355357
kids dont want it, parents think its baby shit

File: 0a3312e0cefffab147e5f90644401eac.gif (882KB, 500x358px) Image search: [Google]

882KB, 500x358px

>>93355357

>>93355347
COMPUTER IS FUTURE

They tried to bring it back.

Then none of you idiots bought Princess and the Frog.

So you dug out your own graves.

>>93355347
Animating with drawings is outdated now that we have CGI. Should we go back to painting on cave walls just because it was the default for awhile?

>>93355347
CGI is more appealing to the masses.

The proof's in the box office for the last couple 2D Disney movies before they closed that part of the animation studio down

File: anigif_enhanced-15973-1422564629-20.gif (537KB, 400x198px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 400x198px

>>93355398
You get two very different visual affects with each of those mediums. CGI is probably closer related to stop motion than 2d animation.

It's not mainstream anymore, but it doesn't mean its dead, MLP might respark interest. Also there's France, looking forward to Big Bad Fox.
But don't count on Disney or DreamWorks to make 2D , they are married to CGI.

>>93355347
See that number growing in the top right corner? That's the number of individual handrawings someone has to make. That's probably a days worth of work or more. And it only ads up to 5 seconds of animation.

>>93355347
It didn't. It died IN AMERICA because Pixar was on a roll while Disney was busy churning out garbage. By the time the smoke cleared, and Disney cleaned up its act, 3D was king.

In Japan, 2D is still king, and their attempts at 3D generally look like stiff, awkward, overly flashy garbage.

>>93355467

How...long do you think it takes to make 5 seconds of 3D animation?

>>93355517
America also shipped all of its animation offshore to Japan for the most part, so all the animation studios in the US died outside of Disney.

>>93355522
then you have to lineart it, color it, paint a background and then individually swap out each cell and take a photo of them. Only then does it get compiled and edited.

>>93355382
Never understood why they did 2d animation tests for movies that are going to be done entirely in cgi.

Given how many line tests animators often do during the production stages, at that point they'd might as well just do it in 2D.

>>93355434
>that moment it takes for him to find the other coat sleeve

Someone spent dozens of hours drawing that. For something barely anyone would have noticed.
It's weird the shit I took for granted as a kid and I find absolutely amazing as an adult.

>>93355553
doing short bursts of 2D for characters gets down certain movements or expressions better than just going from stilted sketches to putting shit together in 3D

>>93355553
That's just keyframing. Probably wasn't that much effort.

>>93355347
Because Pixar.

And 3D looks more impressive to plebs even though 2D requires more skill.

>>93355553
Key framing in pencil is better than wasting time rendering that shit in 3D.

>>93355544

I AM AWARE OF THE PROCESS. Do you actually think (good) 3D is faster?

Also...

>swap out each cell and take a photo of them

It's not the 80s anymore, grandpa. This stuff is done digitally.

>>93355535
>Japan

Maybe in the 80s and early 90s. Nowadays try Korea, or more recently, The Philippines and India.

3D animation is easier and quicker to make, especially in this day and age with HD resolutions. 2D would just take too long, unless corner cutting was involved.

>>93355650
it's weird. 3D gets praised when it's done 100% but CGI gets panned at almost every chance.

>>93355373
Yeah we gotta get them attracted to cgi women now.

>>93355347
Nothing died, you retard. Styles go in and out of fashion.

Besides, if you think about it, you will realize that 2D and stop motion were the only real ways to do animation for DECADES, since computers did not exist.

>>93355467
That sequence alone probably has like 10 people working simultaneously on it. I'm gonna say 2-3 days tops.

>>93355347
because is more than 2 so its better

>>93355968
Funny thing is, 90% of CGI in live action movies are actually used pretty reasonably, to the point that people simply don't even notice that its CGI. The "CGI is bad" opinion more comes from when CGI is very clearly used to cut corners in scenes that could've easily otherwise used props and make up. It can especially get bad in Horror movies, because it can lead to situations like the monster appearing far too liberally, or the gore looking too artificial.

>>93356057
>for DECADES

More like nearly a Century.

>>93355347
Because whenever someone decides to make a big 2d movie they decide to draw every fucking frame with hand instead of using software. Then they wonder why that movie costs 200 millions.

>>93356095
This clip is taken before cleanup, so it'd be two people. An animator and an assistant to do inbetweening.

>>93356133
are 2d animations more expensive to make than 3d? I thought 3d was more expensive, but it makes a bigger return profit.

>>93356129
Yeah. Basically, computers are new, and 3D CG is new, and new is good. There is a reason peopel listen to electronic music nowadays, and not Renaissance stuff.

>>93356151
Basically it boils down to being more time consuming, especially if you go a fully traditional route and do every last thing by hand. Redline, while /a/, was done almost completely by hand and took something like seven years to make.

With 3d animation exploding over the last 20 years or so, the effects are very well done and you have a huge field of people to choose from to do the necessary work, and less so for something hand-drawn or traditionally animated.

>>93356151
No it takes a lot more people and a LOT more time to make a traditional animated project. Digitally it's actually easier and cheaper which is why most everything is done this way now.

>>93355347
Because people got lazy.

>>93356207
Actually, 2D is cheaper and often more fast. It's just that 3D CG looks more realistic, and that is what the public wants now. No matter how you handle 2D, it will never look real (which is the point). 2D looks like a moving drawing, while CG can look close to real life.

Will watching MLP help support 2D animation

>>93356244
"I've worked on CG features and I've worked on hand-drawn features. And hand-drawn features are harder to make. Hand-drawn cartoons take a year to produce. Once you've produced sequences, it's hard to change the work. You have to go back and do everything over.

But with CG, you can animate the movie in three or four months, change things close to the release date. You can't do that in hand-drawn animation. If you find out the story doesn't work when you're two-thirds done, you're stuck. With CG, we change the story and rework sequences until late in the process.

It's close to live-action in that way. You can rework until late in the production. With hand-drawn animation, the plot, action and dialogue has to be locked down way earlier, or the picture won't get done in time for its release."

http://www.rotoscopers.com/2015/02/27/former-disney-veteran-explains-why-big-studios-have-abandoned-2d-animation/

>>93356288
And yet other veterans say 2D is cheaper.

And remember that GOOD CG costs a shitload.

>>93356288
>Rotoscopers
I remember listening to their Tiny Toons How I Spent My Vacation review. They spent 30 minutes praising all the segments, and how fun it was. They ended up giving the movi2 1 out of 4 stars.

>>93355544
>>93355544
So do you think that to make 3D animation you just open the program, hit the "animate" button, and then you've got Cars 4?

Because if you do, that tells me you don't know anything about animation. Like you saw a documentary on Disney from 1983 or something at that was it.

>>93356113
yeah yeah we've all watched that one youtube video

>>93355347
Blame Disney

>>93356297
Could you post a source on that? Not doubting you, I'm just looking for sources that say one way or the other and am having some trouble. All I could find was the link above as of right now. Well and a Reddit post but that would probably trigger so many people it would derail the thread.

File: 1438360652152.jpg (11KB, 328x277px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 328x277px

>>93356151
>>93356212
>>93356207
Question: Where are people getting these ideas?

2D is not more expensive or more time consuming. If anything, it can be cheaper than a lot of 3D movies and faster. Budgets for new 3D movies tend to swell from time to time because they actually have to invent new technology to make it. CGI ages like milk, so it takes a lot of work to make new movies look good.

2D just doesn't sell. 3D looks newer, so it's their focus. So Disney focuses on it. That's why they fired all their 2D animators.

So seriously, why does everyone think it's cheaper to make 3D? I'm asking.
>Princess and the Frog (2009) budget: $105 million
>Tangled (2010) budget: $260 million

>>93356355
I do not save any links after I learn something, but the argument was that HIGH quality CG costs a lot of money, and the old model of Disney cartoons was spending a lot on merchandise, which could always fail.

With computer assistance, modern 2D is cheap. CG only makes details and shadows easier.

>>93356359

Because they think that computers do all the work in 3D, neglecting all the prep work that a 3D movie requires that you can avoid with a 2D movie.

If 3D was cheaper all television animation would be 3D.

They're just ignorant.

>>93356359
I think it's important to distinguish between cel animation and digital animation. Cel animation is definitely more expensive.

>>93355968

That's not weird at all. Google "uncanny valley". That will explain everything for you.

>>93356333
Theres a youtube video saying this?

>>93356359
>2D is not more time consuming

It is if you're aiming for Disney movie quality animation.

>>93356671
Now calculate how much will Pixar or Blue Sky quality CG will cost you.

>>93356524
No one does cel animation at all anymore except auteurs, so I really don't think you need to distinguish between them.

I know people here don't know anything animation, but they at least have to know that no one paints cels anymore.

>>93356166
Nothing will ever beat real instrument.

>>93356469
>If 3D was cheaper all television animation would be 3D.
Almost all toddlers' animation is 3D.

Source: nephews

>>93356355
Not the guy you spoke to, but:
>http://www.blogofoa.com/2012/06/our-exclusive-conversation-with.html

>https://dailypop.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/green-lantern-the-animated-series/

Long story short, while working on the Green Lantern animated series, Giancarlo Volpe has gone on record saying that CGI is definitely more expensive than traditional hand-drawn animation... at least twice as expensive.

>>93355993
Gotta do it by degrees, anon.

>>93355347

Because it is really, really not financially viable in a feature length movie format.

I we are talking full cheat, unpaid korean labor levels of cost cutting here.

>>93356733
I'm talking time here, not budget.

>>93356297
He didn't say it was cheaper, he said it was easier for the reasons provided.

Imagine how busted up Zootopia or How to Train Your Dragon's story would be if it was done in 2D rather than what they have now where they basically re-worked the entire film 8 months before release.

A whole generation was taught that 2D was "Too kiddy"

File: 1497934464513.jpg (109KB, 683x642px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 683x642px

>>93355517
It really depends of the studio and type of show/artstyle they are going with, if you are judging them for the latest human atrocity that the Berserk anime is.
Films:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf8B0mTwBo0 (Haruka and the magic mirror)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmNzYOK2Qgk

Now if we are talking about 3D shows that tries to emulate the "2D" looks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSZ5H79kMXI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBFKj6_p-Q0

>>93358546
>implying anime matters
HAHAHAHAHAHA

>>93356273
If by "2D" you mean flash, sure.

File: 1498016632756.webm (3MB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 600x600px

>>93358546
3D anime was a mistake.

>>93355574
This

>>93357742

I dunk about HTTYD but that movie about permanently persecuted predator trying to make a ghetto for his homies was lik 40% done.

There wouldn't be much to save if it was 2d.

There's one 2D animated movie coming out this year, but we can't talk about it.

>>93359716
Yeah but it's tweened and puppeted to all shit. I find it more insulting that the only 2D film coming out is one that ISN'T traditional rather than being one we can't talk about.

I mean, digital puppet animation CAN look good, but it's never going to beat stuff like Ernest & Celestine and Tarzan. And we don't have a single one of those coming out. Not even independently as far as I know.

>>93355396
hey I saw that movie in theatres multiple times, as forgettable as it was

>>93355382
Tangled would have been so much better in 2d. Concepts showed her playing with her hair and it flying everywhere but CG only limited it to a long dead snake.

>>93355347
Americans have shit taste

File: 1487801972569.jpg (20KB, 232x164px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 232x164px

>>93355347
>tfw no movies using the paperman technique

>>93355517
>In Japan, 2D is still king
Slideshowing is still king*

>>93355574
Thats the "Illusion of life"

>>93355357
What was the OP gif from?

>>93355347
Because it's expensive and normies don't like it anyway.

>>93355396
Because it sucked. You can bring back an entire medium with one lackluster film.

>>93355347
It's expensive and children prefer 3D

>>93358765
This is like watching a six year old playing with action figures, and not even in the fun self aware sort of way.

>>93361792
sadly
animation is an art, people shouldn't look at the mona lisa and say
>if he had made it with photoshop it would be cheaper and more people would've liked it.

>>93355396
cause no one cares about niggers anon.

>>93355347
How come there are no famous 3d animators, whether in the east or west? is this a side effect of 3D, removing the need to specialize or have a unique style?

>>93355347
Would Pixar ever make a 2D animation movie or are they strictly a 3D company.

I think traditional animation has gotten the shaft in the late 2000s. The last few Disney 2D animated movies didn't sell NEARLY as much merchandise as Frozen so CLEARLY it's the MEDIUM'S fault!

>>93362381
i heard they are opening new studio for experimental animation or something.

>>93362489
2d needs to WOAH audience somehow again, that's all. however no one is up to the challenge

>>93357441

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/japan-box-office-your-name-helps-2016-revenue-hit-record-21b-967826

HOGWASH.

>>93362743
Your Babe only made like $300 million. I expected more from the highest grossing Japanese animation movie. The Minions made more than a billion.

File: DALF2Mq.png (16KB, 174x231px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 174x231px

I'm getting a private tour of the Roy Disney building in a few hours and bringing along the pitch bible for my 2d movie. What does /co/ want me to tell them

>>93363199
minions are for babies, anime is for kino gourments

>>93363269

"when we'll get another 2d full feature?"

>>93357265
Cool thanks. I feel like, with conversations like these, it's always good to post some professional opinions cause these people actually work with this stuff

"GV: Yeah, there were definitely huge sacrifices we've had to make. There's this myth that CG let's you do all these wonderful things and it's so much superior to traditional animation but it actually requires a lot of sacrifice just to pull it off. In a nutshell you have to have your character count a lot smaller on a CG show because again all of those models, that's hours and hours of what they call "man weeks"! Every single character costs all these hours of time and any time a scene is overloaded with characters it costs. We had a very strict amount of character that we could put in this twenty six episode order and when we did the math at the beginning when we were starting to write we all got kind of panicked because it was kind of like, how are going to tell this epic story that we wanted to tell with so few characters.

But I feel like, and feel free to disagree; you don't really notice it in the first thirteen. There's definitely - they'll go to towns and it's not quite as populated as it could be, but we pulled every trick we could to hide that fact. But to answer the second half of your question about the pros of CG's. Obviously you can get a lot more dynamic lighting and more cinematic camera moves in CG which I think really pay off, especially like in the season finale it feels pretty big. Scale is actually is easier to do in CG because basically the formula for scale is, in order to make something seem really big you have to animate it a lot slower, and if you're drawing in-betweens that's going to kill the animator. But if the computer is doing the in-betweens though it's as simple as pressing a button, so that's how we got and that's how we got a lot of things to look bigger and cooler!"
1/2

>>93363407
"Volpe: There’s this misunderstand on the Internet that CG is less expensive than traditional, and that’s actually really not the case at all. CG is actually — I would say, ballpark, twice as expensive as traditional. It’s quite an investment and a commitment to decide to do a show in CG. But the beauty of CG was obviously that you can get very dynamic lighting, and you can get very dynamic camera angles, and I think that lighting and camera angles can really make a sci-fi show soar.

One of the challenges, though, is that in CG you actually have to be very prudent with how many models you build. Every character, every set, every prop is money. We have to kind of tell these stories very economically, which is one of the Catch-22s — the very nature of the show is that they go planet to planet and explore these entirely different civilizations, entirely different species, and so every time that happens we have to create this new set, this new planet, and this new species. It can be challenging, for sure."

quotes from the articles you posted.

>>93360254
Probably takes too long/costs too much money

Takes far too long to produce. Nearly 100x the amount of time to produce one scene in 2D when compared to 3D animation and for not much cheaper.

Over time it begins to eat away at the animators as well and they start getting sloppy.

>>93363199

Japan has poor saturation on the international market and half the population of the US. If 2D had been kept alive in the US and had Hollywood's distribution machine behind it, it could easily pull those big numbers.

Point is, 2D films can make money. They DO make money in Japan and Europe. They're dead here because of the culture of Hollywood, and 20 years of training audiences to like 3D, not because they're too expensive to make money.

>>93363508

There is so much astounding ignorance in this thread.

>>93355396
It was a bad film. It was a mediocre mid-2000s Disney animal adventure flick disguised as a princess movie. If the entire film was like the beginning and ending it might have mattered more but as is it's just completely forgettable.

>>93355347
>A lot of work despite being cheaper
>Less returns because normies think 3D is an upgrade from 2D, when they are in fact different things

>>93355396
PatF is acutally my favorite 2D animated disney movie
I can't be the only one right?

>>93363269
Tell them you have a massive dong. I think they'll respect you more.

>>93356649
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24

It's a well written rebuttal to the usual "muh practical effects" circlejerk that pops up when discussing modern cinema.

>>93355347
because animators want to be paid as if they're artists and not just scribble junkies who learned a few techniques.

>>93359852
Ernest & Celestine was made using Flash.

>>93355347
Public wants 3D, and 3D is easier to modify once you have the models. See how quickly Frozen and Zootopia went from a traditional evil sorceress tale and Psycho-Pass with furries to what was in theaters and made billions.

>>93355347
STOP CALLING DISNEY ANIMATION TRADITIONAL YOU FUCKING FAGGOTS

>>93364254
What would you call it?

>>93364191
Except that's irrelevant in the 2D vs 3D animation debate.

>>93355383
YEPYEPYEPYEPYEPYEPYEPYEP

File: shrek_2_002.jpg (105KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 800x600px

>>93364205
>>93359852

funny thing, CGI always age faster than 2D because technology will keep moving foward, the resolution will become higher and higher, in like 15 years Zootopia's fancy fur will look off and the eyes become soulless (especially Judy's since they're so huge)

Meanwhile screenshot of E&C will ALWAYS look like page from a children book.

btw. when's Big Bad Fox coming out?

>>93364205
It's not puppeted or tweened though.

>>93364336
You weirdly posted a counter example. Because Shrek and Fiona are so exaggerated, all their little quirks feel less dated. It's sort of like why Toy Story is about, well, toys.

>>93361860
And it's not really even the CGI that's bad. It's almost always a director problem. Someone directing who has only worked on slideshow moe (like Berserk 2016's director) can't direct something completely new like that. And then you've got people like in that webm who try to translate 2D action into 3D "realistic" looking CGI. Take Tekken cinematics. Always full of weight, like real people moving (even when demons and shit are on screen).

And that weight is something even most US animation studios don't even get right. Probably cause most of them outsource to Korea anyways, which is even worse than Japan's slideshowing.

>>93355398
Painting has always eclipsed sculpture in popularity.

>>93363407
See, I wonder if this is what could cause, in 5-10 years, a second 2d animation renaissance. If 3D animation stopped becoming "cool" at some point and just simply became easier to work with for movies as >>93356288 describes, then perhaps 2D animation could fit better into a television niche, aka cartoons. Right now it's the only place where 2D animation really has a consistent home, but I wonder if this might be the way of things going forward.

File: watercolor_sadness.png (2MB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x1280px

>>93364336
>tfw you're a traditional artfag and you have a hard time keeping faith in the medium because everything now looks super glossy and smooth while you love the rough texture of paper

>>93364289
Disneyesque. It looks very different from most 2D.

File: ebf575e221bd5d86b914ff3babaa0bf7.jpg (536KB, 1777x1000px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 1777x1000px

>>93364446

dont lose faith. good things come to those who wait.

File: Chicken-little-disneyscreencaps.com-1118.jpg (270KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 1920x1080px

>>93364386
meanwhile humans look off as fuck.

>>93355347
You can't recycle as many assets for cheap sequels.

>>93356273
no, fuck you
if MLP is the only mainstream 2D animation in the US, then it deserves to die from it's cancer

>>93364205
flash, as a medium, isn't necessarily bad. if you know what you're doing, you can make a smoothly animated masterpiece

File: rs_560x415-140514132926-1024.disney-villains-sid-phillips.jpg (49KB, 560x415px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 560x415px

>>93364522
Looking back on Toy Story Sid is now far more horrifying than any of his frankenstined toys.

File: images.jpg (101KB, 666x999px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 666x999px

why didn't you fucks go and see the red turtle?

>>93364910
i dont watch KINO.

>>93361499
Unless you're talking about Gainax, then studios rarely do still frames anymore

File: p12004128_p_v8_aa.jpg (291KB, 960x1440px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 960x1440px

>>93364850

they should never show their faces, maybe do nanny two shoes or cow& chicken parents

>>93356166
You ever listen to Renaissance music? Shit dope.
https://youtu.be/xaRNvJLKP1E

>>93355517
Dude, Japan's already movnig into 3D hardcore. Even the new Tatsunoko show is gonna be 3DCG.

>>93363328
I'll probably lead into that with Paperman and how they're developing that technology, but I'll see what's up (that I can disclose, obviously).

>>93364156
>Having to tell people as opposed to people just knowing
Get a load of this cuckjuggler.

>>93364147
No, I like it too. It's good for what it was

>>93361550
Treasure Planet.

>>93364254
But op never said traditional

>>93357140
That's a musical snob talking.

>>93365898
It says traditional on the image.

>>93365961
It says tumblr on lots of gifs and people aren't talking about tumblr here.
Wait, that's a bad example.

>>93365961
That's a Tumblr watermark.

>>93355357
I still can't imagine how angry the staff must have been when told that they were going to have to animate a movie where half the scenes are underwater.

>>93366140

why would they be upset?

>>93355429
Part of that is confirmation bias, as Disney spent less on marketing those last few 2D flicks. Nobody even knew the Pooh movie existed.

>>93366194

>putting it against harry potter finale

someone should be fired for that.

>>93366169
Animating the physics of shit properly underwater, hair especially, would be time consuming as fuck to get right and look natural.

>>93366169
Because the hair was constantly moving and flowing. I remember a behind the scenes documentary I watched had the animators explain how challenging it was.

>>93356288
3D is easier from the perspective of a studio like Disney that has massive budgets. Shots that would take one animator a long time to make (say, a character dancing with her hair and dress swishing about) can be instead done by a huge team in much less time. A guy for the basic movement, a guy that fixes technical errors, a team for the hair, a team for the clothes, etc.
Also, all this talk about changing things last minute - again only something possible with a massive budget. In animation of all sorts huge last minute changes are a really bad idea. Looks like Disney made a bad habit out of it.

>>93364106
The 2D hate is killing art. Most magazines, covers and ads refuse to use drawings anymore.

>>93366242
Why? They did their job.
The Pooh movie was an exercise in showing that "nobody wants 2D."

>>93357184
nice

>In animation of all sorts huge last minute changes are a really bad idea. Looks like Disney made a bad habit out of it.

they rewrote Frozen last minute: earned billion dollars.
they rewrote Zootopia last minute: earned billion dollars.

it's a bad habit that pays off.

File: 1457219089936.jpg (72KB, 600x674px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x674px

>>93366448
>>93366872

>>93365672
What technology? It was pretty much 2D rotoscoping CGI that was already using 2D animated references. It's nothing that can't be done now.

>>93366494
you sure it wasn't an exercise in showing that nobody wanted a Pooh movie?

>>93355396

I saw it and I liked it. It was an excellent representation of Southern culture and what people down here think of Obama.

t. proud mobile resident

>>93367120
Do you like DeMarcus Cousins?

File: bzMz11G.gif (561KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 625x626px

>>93355398

>>93365638
after a ton of anime goes fully 3dCG & people like Miyazaki die out b/c the people who appreciate 2d are getting older & older, think there'll be any saving the east?

>>93367120
>southern culture
nigga, please. the culture in the majority of the south & in Louisiana are entirely different

>>93363269
Tell them that it might be in their best interest to produce what they are known so much for and 2-D could be a good investment as audiences would like variety and not Cars and Frozen sequels every summer. Tell them that 2-D might have a chance if you produce an original non-princess musical film with semi-different designs. Do something new.

File: I_Like_The_WW2_One_Better.jpg (167KB, 412x533px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 412x533px

>>93355347
Here are some raisins:

>Pixar's dominace and Disney's downfall during the late 90s and early 00's.
After Lion King some Disney's films lacked the great quality of the earlier 90s movies, or it could also be said that by that point Disney's princess films had become oversaturated and predictable. Around that time Pixar came along with a whole slew of films that had newer and better stories that went beyond princess musicals. Aside from being very Jewish, most Hollywood producers are extremely cynical, cheap, and stupid (years of cocaine-abuse and pederasty will do that yo you); they thought that people and critics liked the Pixar films better because of the new technology behind them , NOT because they where telling better stories, which is bullshit, because if it where the TWO Spongebob movies wouldn't have been as successful and Studio Ghibli wouldn't be beating CGI films at award shows. Either way, this is why Chicken Little was made. Pixar threatened to leave Disney, Disney got scared because Pixar was now their cash-cow, and they decided to throw their hat into the CGI ring by making their own CGI movie. It was only when they decided to tell a good story (Tangled) that their films started to get better.
>CGI is easier to make.
Its not cheaper, as 3D programs cost a shit-ton of money, but it is less time-consuming. With 2D you have to redraw every frame, over and over again, with 3D you can just animate from the model you have already created, so in some regards its less similar to 2D and more similar to 3D as you don't have to create a new model for every new frame. You also don't have to worry about inbetweening as more programs do that for you.

>>93356671
It's actually much faster to draw frames than edit every single cgi frame with all those filters movement corrections rendering etc

>>93355347
because the CGI movie production chain is more atomic, most of the work in each area can be done by different departments independently in parallel AND when a deeper change is needed toward the end of production it doesn't make a large amount of existing work need to be redone.
executives like CGI because from their perspective there is less risk.

>>93368592
>every single cgi frame
it's not the 90's anymore son...

>>93368747
oh shit I meant seconds not frames

>>93357184
Do you think you could like
Tone the boob juggle down

https://youtube.com/watch?v=0nlJuwO0GDs

I'd love a movie that used both 2D and 3D, something akin to this cinematic. Animation is done in 3D, but the textures are painted, they don't imitate real life, special effects are done in 2D, smoke, sparkles, lighting bolts etc. They work really well together.

>>93368934
No.

>>93355454
Mlp is Flash. Very obvious Flash, too, unlike Martha Speaks.

>>93357732
Time IS money, guy...

>>93368469
>after Lion King

Hold the fucking phone anon, Hercules, Mulan, Pocahontas and Hunchback are all just as good

fucking treasure planet and atlantis brought it all downhill

>>93366105
Do I look like I care? OP chose to post it.

>>93355347
The reason it died is basically Disney's fault, since as far as America is concerned, it IS 2D animation. It hit a rut around the time 3D was taking off with Pixar, followed by killing off its animation division and thereby creating Dreamworks. It tried returning with The Princess and the Frog, but that failed since the story was pretty mediocre.

As far as what the rest of the thread has said regarding costs, my understanding is that good quality 2D and 3D are comparable, with 2D being a bit cheaper. However, 3D easily outshines 2D in both the public conscious and reusability; with CGI, you can reuse assets like nobody's business. It becomes extremely easy to fill out crowds, and animation skeletons can be reused by different models, saving companies time on animating different characters or reanimating sequences after a design change. With 2D, retracing sequences like this is a lot more obvious, as seen with the reuse of scenes from The Jungle Book, among others, in Disney's Robin Hood.

Furthermore, 3D lets you play with the camera angle much easier, since models are generally made to work from any angle; with 2D, a slight change in angle could necessitate redrawing an entire sequence. For pieces where the angle is consistent throughout, asset reuse is easier, as one can see in the Castlevania series' love of monster designs from Symphony of the Night, but most cinematic works would balk at the idea of keeping one angle like that.

Finally, companies can reuse 3D models for stuff like toy design and merchandising. They don't always, especially since they typically outsource that to other companies, but it is possible.

to;dr: 2D is cheaper, but 3D is currently more popular and easy to adjust. If a project is long enough, in many cases 3D can pay for itself through asset reuse.

>>93371591
>with 2D being a bit cheaper

The Lion King in todays money would be about 68 million dollars. Beauty and the Beast wouldn't even be 50 million.

All of the Disney CG Renaissance movies, starting with Tangled, have been 150 Million+, topping out with Tangled at 260 Million(Not counting advertising, that's it's budget.)

Aside from that, you're right. It's monstrously cheaper to use 2D, but it also makes something like, say, a little short with Elsa and Anna playing around much easier to do comparatively, as no new assets have to be created. You don't even have to alter their textures. Something like a Zootopia short could be recreated at a fraction of the cost a new short would.

>>93369976
That doesn't mean I agree with it you autist. It doesn't detract from the beautiful segment of animation, nor does it mean I agree with the description.

>>93371797
I hesitate to use those numbers for comparison for two reasons; firstly, raw inflation doesn't take into account things like changes in technology, unions, outsourcing labor, etc. It usually works, but for niche markets greatly affected by technology, comparisons get a lot murkier. Secondly, production budget isn't always a great indicator of how much a film will cost to actually produce. It's generally better as a measure of how much money the company expects to get back, with a sizable portion of it either going into polishing things technically doable with less money or getting lost in "Hollywood accounting." For example, if I were to cherry pick an example in your favor, 2011's Winnie the Pooh had a budget of 30 million, minuscule compared to something like Cars 2's 200 mil. However, if I looked at crap like 2013's Planes or its sequel, those had a budget of 50 million since they were designed as DTV movies. I haven't seen either, but the trailers made them seem close enough quality-wise to the Cars series. Another point of comparison is 2004's Home on the Range, which had a budget of 110 million. This sounds low until you hear that 2004's The Incredibles had a budget of 92 million.

If we extrapolated from those, one might come to the conclusion that 3D should be cheaper than hand-drawn, but public standards for the quality of 3D required to be considered acceptable have increased. As technology drives costs down, more work has to be put in to avoid looking like "amateur shit," to the point where stuff from the 90s is nearly unwatchable, whereas many 2D works from the 40s still hold up. These standards adjust cyclically; people only hate old 3D once they get used to new 3D, whereas tech is always improving.

I went with "a bit cheaper" since I feel that's usually the average for "good enough," but you can easily balloon in costs depending on where you go and if you try going high end to future-proof your stuff when higher-def is around the corner.

>>93355347
Because Americans think cartoons are childish, but make Kim Kardashian into a star for having sex.

File: imggru-his-daughters-minions.jpg (66KB, 598x398px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 598x398px

>>93371591
fraking illumination takes advantage of that, the girls are back but they did not age at all, they reused old models. despicable.

>>93364336
Stylized art typically ages better than realistic art. Look at wind waker and Twilight princess.
>>93367101
There was a pooh movie?

>>93375345
>There was a pooh movie?
Exactly.

Actually it was pretty good. And everyone was an idiot in it, which made it hilarious. It was almost like a parody of Winnie the Pooh.

>>93355347
Cost-benefit analysis deemed it must die.

Faster and easier to make 3-d animations in a computer than to draw 2-d animations by hand.

>>93358765

Looking at this makes me wonder why they don't do 3D Devil May Cry movies.

>>93369929
Why did people have shit taste back then? They have their flaws but Atlantis and Treasure Planet were top tier

>>93366456
This is true. It's not just 2D animation that's dying: it's drawing as a whole. You used to see lots of drawings and paintings in advertisements and packaging and such. Now it's all digitally manipulated photos.

>>93358765
dex > str