If actually people hate cgi and don't like this technique,

Did you ACTUALLY think that /co/ represented the marketable majority?

Studios like Disney aren't just thinking in terms of profitability for a single film. They see an investment in technology. Every film does something new technically which can be used in every subsequent film. Hair physics, water physics, etc.

>>93484410
CGI movie became immediately profitable because they were spearheaded by Pixar, a company that was explicitly all about quality products, while 2d producers at that time were creating design by committee crap. That killed 2d not because 2d is inherently less profitable, but because no one in the US was making good 2d. Now CGI movies are the most profitable because 2d movies aren't made anymore.

File: Mutafukaz_Movie_4.png (2MB, 1600x680px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x680px

then why is France still mostly making 2d animated movies?
the US is just one big fucking sellout that doesn't care about creativity

Because hand-drawn animation on the level of quality and scale to compete with CGI is ridiculously expensive.

>>93484410
You think they do CGI to increase production cost?

The majority of people have bad taste.
This isn't a hard concept to get.

>>93484410
Movies are more profitable than cartoons.
CGI movies attract audience of actual movies who never watch drawn cartoons, hence the larger profits.

>>93484434
This. Also models are reusable. Means you can produce tv series based on movie with minimal efforts.

>>93484410
>If actually people hate cgi and don't like this technique
Did you confuse people with some faggots on /co/?

It's easier and cheaper to stamp toys that look like cgi characters.

>>93484410
Because kids has SHIT taste - they are too young to be marketed to, but people still do because its easy.

>>93484410
because /co/ is extremely far from a crowd big enough to make a difference with complaining about cg movies.

Why do Eskimos eat seal fat ?

Because they don't know any other food.

File: CGI.gif (3MB, 839x344px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 839x344px

>>93484480
>using CGI means you don't have creativity
Nice delusion. And Japan is making CGI anime now.

>>93484571
>>93485238
>being this mad
Just embrace the future. CGI has unlimited potential

>>93484534
>models are reusable
Thats just preproduction stuff, which is usually reusable. Character sheets, sculptures, movie bible, all reusable.

File: cgi anime.gif (3MB, 537x444px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 537x444px

>>93485369
>Japan is making CGI anime now

>>93485433
>cherry picking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r37ARGRJC-k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMd0qKUwZMw

>>93485494
shit

File: ad3bf3a5-2d40-480a-87c7-8139b4c04faa..gif (1003KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

1003KB, 250x250px

>>93485433
>most of them have a fps of 10

>>93485646
Just like 2D anime

>>93484480
>then why is France still mostly making 2d animated movies?
Lack of talent and technology

>>93485369
so THATS now those fucking chimps move
perplexed me forever

>>93484410
Because they're made and promoted. 90% of a film's success comes down to availability and marketing. You could have made Shrek out of anything and it'd have done well.

File: 1498509109469 (1).jpg (1MB, 1222x1678px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1222x1678px

>>93485494
You should know people here how highly disingenuous can be and there is not point talking them out of their cherry picking

File: davy-jones.jpg (811KB, 2048x1148px) Image search: [Google]

811KB, 2048x1148px

>>93486181
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51Ffh2nbHnE

>>93484444
You are full of it.

When CGI was new it was insanely expensive. 2D, even full-length Disney 2D, was far, far cheaper. This was well before Pixar existed.

Eventually CGI became cheaper as software was refined, techniques improved and hardware got faster and cheaper. Now CGI is cheaper and faster than traditional 2D, and even a lot of "2D" is done digitally and with 3D tweaks (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQxPWT-ifyI for example). It has nothing to do with the public "liking" 3D more; studios are going to make movies the most economic way they can.

There will always be some traditional 2D stuff produced, even if it's just shorts.

>>93486407
>It has nothing to do with the public "liking" 3D more
Remember, The princess and the frog was a failure

>>93484571

Everyone has this same taste, parents will prefer 3D CGI because it looks more "real" and "relatable"

>>93484410
animation fans don't like it

everyone else does

>>93486631
You think it failed because it was tradionally animated?

>>93486659
Is there a different explanation?
>inb4 niggers

>>93485494
says the person literally cherrypicking his counter examples

>>93486701
Ni- oh... never mind.

>>93486701
There are several reasons, and yes the heroine is probably one of them.

Understanding this doesn't mean it's "true" though. Remember, Fantasia didn't work when it was first released, but then in the 60s the hippies fucking loved it. Some movies miss their right time.

>>93486813
What is wrong with the main character?

>>93487105
She's American.

And they got fricking Oprah in as a character consultant.

File: Beastwars-volume1.jpg (50KB, 339x475px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 339x475px

>>93484410
Only weebs and neckbeards hate it

>>93485238
>confirmed for never having seal
Shits delicious my man.

>>93484410
No one really hates it or cares what technology is used. It's how it's used to tell a story that matters.

>>93485684
>2D anime is working off of the limitation of how hard you can whip korean slaves and still produce faster work and has to keep that in mind while making it
>3D anime just cuts the framerate by 1/2 or even 2/3s with no regard for how garbage it's going to look as a result

>>93486701
it failed because actually marketing something as a "princess movie" doesnt work these days. boys wont want to see something called "the Princess and the frog" because "eew, princesses are for giiiirls" and Adults are likely not to take them because of the same mentality.

Which is why Disney started marketing their princess movies like Dreamworks movies, with quirky titles. So Rapunzel became "Tangled" and "The Ice Queen" became "Frozen"

its less to do with the medium and more to do with the marketing.

Also the fact that it released a week before Avatar, which made everyone forget it.

the movie itself was actually fairly successful on opening weekend.

>>93489107
Moana literally is "brown princess in an ocean" and people still went to see it

>>93484410
>Implying quality = profits
I bet you're the kind of anon who makes box office threads.

>>93489160
but it didn't have "princess" in the title. And was not marketed as one. it was marketed as this family adventure film

It also wasnt a traditional princess movie either, and had a unique setting and premise.

The problem isn't CGI itself, it's how many companies take cheap shortcuts with it just to churn something out quickly with no care for quality.

Sure, there are low quality 2D animations to. But they generally take more effort than 3D ones do.


Plus, personally, 2D animation never feels like it ages. 3D does. It's why some SNES games still look great while every N64 game now just looks like a blocky mess.

>>93486079
>France
>Lack of talent
Pick one

Wasn't James Cameron's Avatar out the same time as princess and the frog?

>>93489232
came out a week later.

>>93489232
To this day, I still don't know why people went so crazy over JC's Avatar. It was one of the most boring films I've ever seen.

I mean at least Princess and the Frog had a couple of memorable songs to take away from it. Avatar was just nothing.

File: 30717554_p1.png (357KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 600x800px

Was OP written by an animal or AI that has just begun it's sapient awakening? Or perhaps OP is Starfire?

>>93489320

Pocahontas in space.
it was like Zootopia, gorgeous to look at.

>>93489320
Well, it's a movie from that guy who made the Terminator, isn't it?
Also, it was heralded as that full 3DCGI-movie that was totally awesome with 3D-glasses.

>>93489218
Good CGI doesn't age.

>>93485494
Fucking gantz was final fantasy tier cut-scene graphics. It's a full cgi movie.

Your second cherry picking is moe-blob shit that only fat, neckbeared, weeaboo scum watch.

CGI in anime will always be bad

>>93485684
2D anime doesn't work like that, and if one has a steady 10 (or actually 8 or 12) FPS it's exceptional for a movie and not going to happen for a show.

>>93486407
Modern American 3D movies are vastly more expensive than their 2D movies were. Also vastly more expensive than today's anime movies.

>>93486763
Berserk is an extreme outlier.

>>93488340
Anime is not made in Korea, and not all 3D anime simply throttles the framerate.

File: roughnecks-starship-troopers-chronicles.jpg (142KB, 1440x750px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1440x750px

What's your favorite CGI series, anons?

pic related

I really wish people would make CGI movies with drastically different artstyles. Lately, everything blends together and looks the same stylistically.

>>93486181
Dude, that's technology from the 90's, if not earlier.

>>93490631
Jimmy Neutron

>>93490748
Or more CGI movies that don't have CGI talking animals or talking objects.

>>93484410
People hate it, it's just that those people are in the minority.

File: hqdefault (1).jpg (5KB, 168x94px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 168x94px

>>93485369
>japan is making cgi anime now
>now
yeah totally a new thing, totally.

Also im sure everyone loves berserk.

>>93485494
>not posting the best and only worth mention example
https://youtu.be/yR3caZ9hQ5Y

too bad the movie itself sucked ass.

>>93484410
SHrek really was a game changer

>>93489320
>Avatar was just nothing.
It gave us ABATAP

I found avatar boring, but i like the paradox of how the highest grossing movie of all time also forgettable

>>93490948
t. Ant

KIds and their parents.

The people you talk about are the "adult" minority that gives a shit about animation.

You're a retard.

>>93484410
that mesh is pure beauty

>>93485494
1:22 you can still tell its cheap cgi
nice try tho
i mean it, we are not far from having good enough cgi for cartoons

>>93493375
It's not perfect CGI but neither is anything else, and if you are trying to imply it isn't massively better than Berserk then you're delusional.

File: Dragon_Ball_Super_49_720p_MXENPT_30E7DC1D.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>93485494
Yeah but we are far from having good enough 2D animation for cartoons

>>93494257
Meant for
>>93493375

>>93484504
Is it? Princess and the Frog was fffaaarrrrr less expensive than even something like Frozen was. That CGI sucked and it was still 150 million.

>>93494257
It's always Dragon Ball or Naruto that people cite when trying to prove that anime has bad animation (and usually the same couple of examples year after year). Probably because those are the only shows they've ever seen, which I guess makes them fully certified sakuga experts.

https://sakugabooru.com/post/show/35108
https://sakugabooru.com/post/show/34352

>>93494297
After that movie and Winnie the Pooh Disney let a lot of its stable of 2D animators go, so if they ever want to try again they have to recruit and train new people.

File: 18204733-1280-720.jpg (101KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1280x720px

>>93494346
>cherrypicks CGI
>complains about people cherry picking 2D
And my hero academia isn't an example of good animation

>>93494616
I didn't cherrypick any CGI, and the guy who did wasn't even doing much cherrypicking compared to the guy who posted Berserk since his examples are more in line with what can be expected from 3D anime.

>complains about people cherry picking 2D
It is a fallacy to claim that anime has bad animation because a scene in Dragon Ball has bad animation, and like I said it's always either DB or Naruto because that's all people have seen.

>And my hero academia isn't an example of good animation
Then you are completely unqualified to be saying anything about animation.

File: poor berserk fans.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>93485433

File: Gundam.webm (3MB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 960x720px

>>93494662
Go away, kid. You modern weebs don't even know what good animation looks like.

File: 1485717747735.png (417KB, 717x587px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 717x587px

>Pan video comes out
>threads start immediately
really gives your thinker a tinker

>>93494840
I'm older than you and I said absolutely nothing that would make me a weeb. You have no idea what the word means.

And it is you who has no idea what good animation looks like, so fuck off. You have no business talking about any of this since you know absolutely nothing about it.

>>93485369
>using CGI means you don't have creativity
Nice delusion.
All those people claiming Mad Max 4 didn't have CGI still crack me up

File: Mayozaki.jpg (52KB, 800x434px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 800x434px

>CGI anime

>>93495610
Miyazaki isn't opposed to 3D animation. Or at least he isn't anymore.

>>93485433
Japan makes good anime CGI. . . it's just that you'll find the majority of it in vidya and not in an actual anime studio.

>>93485410
>movie bible ???

>>93495660
Idolmaster has some great animation. It would be very interesting if someone tried making an anime with the same aesthetic and method (motion capture).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRQ1Iam1zec

>>93486361
Holy shit. That's incredible.
Also, looking back on this film I completely forgot how fucking grotesque and disturbing some of the scenes are (that dudes death with Davys tenticles in particular).

>>93494257
is it just me or does anime always looks like is missing a few frames ?

>>93495964
anime is max 10 f/s mostly just a bunch of still images with moving lips

>>93495964
It deliberately skips frames all over the place.

>>93496040
Myth, and nobody even uses 10 FPS.

>>93496100
>Myth, and nobody even uses 10 FPS.

everybody just use 2 fps

>>93496126
Uh huh.

People who obsess the most over framerate are also the least informed about it.

>>93496163
so tell me informed one how many fps are in animu?

File: sigh.jpg (92KB, 577x341px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 577x341px

>>93494862
>thread started about 5 hours before pan's video was posted

Think before you pose anon.

>>93496215
It has no constant framerate and neither did Disney movies.

>>93496240
>neither did Disney movies.
idiot
Disney movies had 24 fps

>>93496321
No, the framerate varied.

>>93496163
because when used it correctly it can give the animation more personality and credibility
you need to know when to add or remove frames depending on the action you try to make
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw0h9WmBlsw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BarOk2p38LQ

>>93496350
saurce?

>>93496565
see>>93496506

>>93496579
those aren't saurces that Disney used varied framerates

>>93496627
it presint the basic principles

File: 1486847786973.jpg (15KB, 221x228px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 221x228px

>>93484410
Ever notice how every time the pizza man makes a video we do a thread relating to the topic without mentioning the video?

>>93496739
haha you don't understand

framerates and timing are different things

>>93496794
>being this retarded

>>93496881
Ignore him. That guy is a big shitposter

File: 1472357050393.gif (2MB, 200x355px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x355px

>>93484410
Christ, the topology at the Philtrum.

File: rango1.webm (3MB, 1152x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1152x480px

Real talk, are we ever going to get a CG animated film that approaches the same level as Rango?

I rarely see anyone mention the ludicrously high milestone set by this film in 2011. The studio behind the feature (Industrial Light & Magic) have been at the forefront of CG animation and special effects since the very beginning, and they are responsible for virtually every major innovation and notable use of CG in films (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Light_%26_Magic#Filmography). Pixar and Modern Disney owe everything to these guys.

File: rango2.webm (3MB, 1152x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1152x480px

>>93499960

>>93499960
>>93500010
We need a CGI booru

File: xavier_renegade_angel-show_5999.jpg (32KB, 333x250px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 333x250px

>>93490631

File: 1305755899664.jpg (14KB, 380x250px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 380x250px

>>93495376
CGI shouldn't be a clutch when making things if you can install a sense reality with bits that you can't do in CGI I can guarantee you will capture an audiences attention.

>>93484410
Because people with shit taste are more than willing to waste their money on garbage, the tie-in videogame and McDonald's toys.

File: cftv11703.jpg (23KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 640x360px

>>93490631
Shows styled like bubble bip, jelly jamm.

>>93495789
Rip ID claim.

>>93491058
will it be able to compete now that every animated studio is now just making parodies and has really good looking cgi?

File: jvh86.png (589KB, 720x542px) Image search: [Google]

589KB, 720x542px

>>93499960
>>93500010
Fuck, that's nice. Is it worth a watch? I'm a sucker for Westerns

>>93495676
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_(screenwriting)

File: screw you guys.webm (420KB, 400x250px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 400x250px

>>93494738
I really, truly do feel sorry for Berserk fans.

File: IMG_0078.jpg (83KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 500x375px

Because of Toy Story 1 and 2 and Shrek 1 and 2 being very profitable and extremely populary. Basically proved cgi is a good idea to produce. Especially since movie quality traditional animation is expensive and lengthy to make.

File: -2.jpg (24KB, 620x400px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 620x400px

But will digital or cgi ever feel as truly cozy as traditional?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAExa9P7hME

File: 1031778-pixar-piper-07.jpg (32KB, 620x346px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 620x346px

I don't like cgi animation because all they want to do is to make something as realistic as possible instead of making in artistic stylized way

Even if characters are cartoony their environment is still realistic with no artistic design and cartoony characters with realistic skin pores, eyelashes etc don't look good

>>93504601
>quality traditional animation is expensive and lengthy to make.

it's actually cheaper and faster

>>93504633
True but animated movies are drawing bigger crowds now and modern 2D movies don't perform as well all the films Pixar produced that everyone obsesses over. Also the big studios are adapted to and have the resources for producing cgi movies they expect to be profitable.

>>93484410
because the people that hate CG movies are a very small minority.

>>93504360
It was okay and Depp sorta sucked as a VA. Make sure to watch it in good quality. All the animals look absolutely amazing.

The fox was sexy

>>93484444
Quads confirm.
>>93486237
This is also correct.

>>93504360
>should i watch the goat
Yes

>>93494738
Holy shit this is terrible.

>>93496350
No, what you're referring to are called "Timing" and "Moving Holds".

Huge difference.

>>93486813
>Remember, Fantasia didn't work when it was first released
>Fantasia garnered significant critical acclaim at the time of release and was seen by some critics as a masterpiece.[130]

>>93508508
Fantasiabarely made any profit when it was released but it was a huge success in 60's because stoners smoke weed and went to theathers to watch Fantasia to maximize pot effects

>>93488058
But I'm a weeb neckbeard and I like CG.

>>93504360
best cgi movie both in cgi, plot and all that good stuff. I think is even better than kung fu panda 2.

>>93504360
dude, you really missed out not watching it on big screen.

make up for it, it's the best animated western in years!

>>93500363
feel the pain!

>>93486270
What's the thing in the bottom middle?

File: Dank_65f623_6308966.jpg (34KB, 326x320px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 326x320px

>If actually people hate cgi and don't like this technique, then why cgi movies are the most profitable? Does mean cgi movies are good movies too? Am I just bad taster?

>>93484410
I have nothing against CGI as long as it's good. All CGI in anime tends to be utter crap while movies like Rango is amazing to just look at.

>>93504616
That is because stylization looks better in 2D.