Will studios ever shift back to traditional animation?

the most we'll get is probably 3d made to look like 2d

>>93958588
There's no practical reason to. Traditional animation is way more tedious and time-consuming while (according to box-office results) making way less money than CGI overall.

>>93958588
I hope so. Disney's traditional animation was beautiful.

>>93958588

not until a 2d movie makes more money than 3d movies

>>93958727
This.

>>93958588
No its to expensive, time consuming and kids today cant aprecciate it.

File: IMG_0543.png (4KB, 493x402px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 493x402px

The horse show movie is going to be in hand drawn.

>But that does not count does it?

>>93959181
It's actually flash puppets made to look hand drawn.

>>93959181
It's not, it's toonboom puppets and CGI

>>93958588
At best we'll see small, independent European studios do traditionally animated shorts, but no one's going to do a traditionally animated full-length feature ever again.

>>93958588
>takes more time
>therefore is more expensive
>it's easier to use computers

Big studios whose only concern is making money have no reason to.

You'd need a passionate studio with massive funding like Laika to ever get great 2D films again. Good luck with that.

>>93958670
Fpbp
>tfw Gigantic could be the first film where they actually use the Paperman style

>>93959390
They just made The Red Turtle.

>>93959165
>>93959425
The only thing that could make 2D expensive today is a scarcity of capable of animators, and even then I don't see how it could rival the budgets of today's 3D movies. Back when 2D was the norm it cost much less than 3D does now.

>>93959425

>Laika's movie earns 500m dollars, >Disney, DreamWorks and lesser studios teach their staff stop motion animation.

That would be hilarious, and most likely to happen.

File: consider the following.jpg (29KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 200x200px

I wonder how popular with children the Disney Classics are these days. When I was a kid in the 90s, I had seen them all and so had all of my friends. Pinnochio, Alice in Wonderland, The Aristocats, they were all old movies but we would watch them on video as much as Aladdin and The Lion King.

But that was before Toy Story and every animated movie in theaters being CGI. If no studio is making traditionally animated movies now, is it because kids today don't want to watch them? Do kids now refuse to watch Pinnochio and Cinderella and Peter Pan because they are traditional 2D animation? Or is the switch to every animated feature being CGI based purely on box-office speculation?

And what about anime? Most anime movies at least aren't 100% 3D CGI. In Japan they release a new Detective Conan movie every fucking April; they're not bombing.

I have a hypothesis that in the west, kids equate 2D animation with television, and CGI with theatrical feature films, and so studios say that 2D animation is dead even though they keep churning out 2D animated TV shows. It's kind of like how color came to be through the 60s. Eventually, people stopped buying tickets to black and white features, even though they had no problem watching black and white TV shows at home, and so studios basically stopped making black and white movies.

>>93959544
>It's kind of like how color came to be through the 60s.
Color was introduced to entice audiences to movie theaters, along with widescreen (because if it was the same thing then why would you bother paying for a movie when you could stay home)? It was also why a lot of older people stopped going to movies, because they were achy old people who would rather stay home. This made audiences skew younger and is part of the reason mainstream movie theaters only show big budget escapist shit (amongst other things).

>>93959390

It's just like videogame industry. Only AAA titles count and everything else is indie shit. You can find gems here and there, bit it's such a chore. Watch that realistically moving grass instead, dat ultra HD resolution!

>>93959544
>Most anime movies at least aren't 100% 3D CGI
more like almost none cgi at all. But even they occasionally try out their hands at it, with mixed to bad results.

My theory is, that Japan simply has better money management than hollywood etc. has. Wasting money on high paying celebrity voice actors, wasting money on badly chosen advertisement(especially considering the modern era of viral marketing which is basically free) and other stuff

>>93959544
Some fair points but main reason Disney uses 3D is because it's a cheaper method to produce blockbuster with CGI then traditional hand drawn method. When at that, anime began to use heavy 3D objects as crows, cars and so on. Even Princess Mononoke had some serious 3D modeling (hog-demon, many of fast/action shots, god, curse etc.) but it was well executed enchancement of ver well made base but... many shots were outsourced to Korea and such. USA market sometimes outsource animation in Canada but Asian market is self sufficient (and underpaid, huge crisis will break soon).

As for the perception, the younger the kids are, less they care for quality.
Kids usually begin to notice animation is shit when they are 6-8 years old. Unless cartoon is really of the lowest of all qualities, anything done in 3D will look okay-ish for kids 10 and up (Jimmy Neutron proves that, that show isn't great but passable and the attention to detail is fair) while 2D cartoons are mostly flash because, it's also cheaper (MLP or Mighty magicswords)

File: 1500265053905.png (11KB, 418x359px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 418x359px

They know kids have no attention spans now and would rather look at digital pepes

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

>>93959841
3D graphics are routinely used in anime movies and shows.

Movies do often employ well-known movie/TV actors, but they are dirt cheap compared to Hollywood actors.

>>93959877
>Some fair points but main reason Disney uses 3D is because it's a cheaper method to produce blockbuster with CGI then traditional hand drawn method.
Their 3D movies are mega expensive compared to their old 2D ones.

>many shots were outsourced to Korea and such.
I scanned through the credits and could not see a single Korean name. And why would Studio Ghibli outsource shots to Korea anyway?

File: 546456.jpg (18KB, 354x308px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 354x308px

>>93958588
It seems like it is close to dead these days.
I seriously doubt we'll see anything even close to Disney/Bluth ever again for 2D, which makes me really sad.

>>93959480
>he only thing that could make 2D expensive today is a scarcity of capable of animators
I have no idea about animation but, when I went to college for art it was impossible to find anyone who took representational art seriously. The art classes existed as easy A courses and nothing more. In drawing they basically gave a half hearted, sad excuse for a lecture before letting us draw a model.
Painting was worse; they never focused on anything; just keep trying whatever you wanted. Always resulted in a good grade.
Courses outside of college were cheaper and worse in many ways.
A course called "Digital Imaging" was just photoshop 101. Most people in that class had no clue as to why it was a bad idea to place bright yellow text on a white background or dark purple on black.

>>93959544
>they keep churning out 2D animated TV shows
They're all painfully low quality though. Even the best look pretty lazy with everyone having noodle arms and the characters look like amorphis blobs. It's like the 60s/70s when Hannah barbara churned out lots of scooby doo clones and other low quality crap. Not to mention how they made a cartoon out of every sitcom during that era.
I just don't see 2d ever bouncing back again. If there was another renaissance who would be the one to bring it around? A small start up company? would some one at Disney decide it's time to bring back their roots?

>>93960009
>Painting was worse; they never focused on anything; just keep trying whatever you wanted. Always resulted in a good grade.
From what I've seen, art education in America/the West now emphasizes being unique. It doesn't matter if you are any good, you just have to stand out.

>>93959544
Keep in mind that the question was about traditional animation. Most of the 2D shows they pump out are still CGI, just not 3D CGI.

>>93958588
2D animation artists are still hired, right? For production stuff

>>93959841
>that Japan simply has better money management than hollywood etc. has.
If by better money management you mean being massive Jews and trying to outsource and cheapen the product where possible, yes.

Although some anime studios are better than others, and some studios actually care about the animation quality (Story and art direction aside, as that is subjective)

>>93959941
>3D graphics are routinely used in anime movies and shows.
To add to this anon, see this video at around 5 minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WCLHP3CRRo

This is one of the 'better' animation studios. Lots of other studios have 3D background characters and don't even try to mask it.

>>93959450
>tfw Moana was originally suppose to be 2D utilizing new technology to make look unique.

>>93960238
You say that as if you can't traditionally animate on a computer.

>>93960339
If by outsourcing you mean outsourcing to foreign countries, that accounts for a small minority of the work. It's America where wholesale outsourcing is the norm.

Studios normally care about animation quality, it's just that not all studios are equally capable and not all productions are the same.

traditional animation is the new black and white films. there was nothing wrong with them they are just dated.

The french still do.

>>93960339
Everyone tries to make the 3D background characters look like they aren't 3D, but it's difficult. If they spend too much time on them, then the point of using 3D is defeated and they may as well animate them by hand. But the reason they went with 3D in the first place is because they didn't want to sink too much time into the background characters or make them look half-assed or inconsistent.

>>93958588
When I win the lottery and open my own studio to make animated cartoons and movies.

>>93959210
But that was also used with princess and the frog.

File: IMG_2112.jpg (187KB, 1882x1180px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1882x1180px

>>93958670
Not quite there yet, but soon, anon.

All in good time.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P1Mn0oaxU80

File: Auri gym.gif (2MB, 800x449px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 800x449px

>>93960460
>The french still do.
This.

>>93958588
Also, they probably want to make it easier to produce new animation with cheaper hires. With traditional hand-drawn animation, this ends up looking like crap because you have your cheap hires trying to draw it, and frequently they did a bad job. With 3D animation, you can just use the existing 3D models (and use them for advertisements, as well) and so the characters at least look good enough. The animation and plot might still be terrible, but at least their appearance will be consistent.

>>93958588
Mate, at this rate, I fear for animation itself.

Why animate anything when you can make a live-action version of it for far cheaper, with better profit margins?

File: bestboy.gif (1MB, 500x231px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x231px

>>93961899
>Not quite there yet
Says who?

I know people are usually talking specifically about American animation, but it sometimes seems like the fate of hand-drawn animation is thought to live and die by what happens in America, even though Japan has the world's biggest and by now most influential animation industry and uses mostly hand-drawn animation.

>>93958705
>>93958588

Maybe in a couple of years if the public gets CG fatigue, and a lot of 3D movies underperform.

File: YKK_ova2.gif (909KB, 500x379px) Image search: [Google]

909KB, 500x379px

Maybe after Disney has a couple of 3D CGI bombs (trust me, they are coming), they'll realize that people really don't care about the animation as long as the story is good, and give it another try at 2D.

Either way it's making a full return at this point though, at best we can expect something that will look 2D but will be 3D with special effects.

>>93960460
Pretty sure France uses Flash most of the time

>>93962544
>flash
>traditional

Please tell me you aren't this delusional

>>93962625
Vidyagims have surpassed cartoons

I've said this before but it bears repeating: Disney had a legacy of new talent being nurtured under the guidance of the previous generation. They've broken that tradition. The 90s big names are all gone. They can't get them back. Even if they for some reason decided they had to make another 2D movie and did a big talent recruitment drive, they don't have any "old masters" hanging around the building.

File: BORG.jpg (66KB, 450x338px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 450x338px

>>93964482

modern disney have a much more profitable strategy now.

it sucks, and we cant do jackshit about it.

The biggest advantage to using 3d is that it allows the studio to completely remake the film in two months if they're not happy with the script/direction/whatever of the current version.
2D just has way too much of a lead time commitment that is seen as a hindrance because scripts and audio are basically being rewritten and recorded until a month before release.
Once you make all of the assets, you can make anybody puppet them around the scenes, you aren't gridlocked to a specific animator.
I don't see them making any kind of big comeback, I just wish they'd be more stylish with the technology.

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

536KB, 1777x1000px

>>93964298

dude, 2D can be made digitally, and even look great because of stylization

>>93965563

yes, but CGI ages faster, especially with movies that wre rewritten literally last minute (like that goddamn Frozen) where there's no time to polish anything.

>>93965658
Oh without a doubt. All the people and the dog from the first Toy Story movie look hilariously wonky. But most people don't care about the legacy, unfortunately.

As a gimmick of sorts probably. I can imagine Disney hyping up a new movie for a whole year and revealing in D23 that's it's just another Princess film, but this time with traditional animation making a point how there's "nothing better then the classics" and everyone will lose there shit.

>>93960675

cgi and toonboom were both used but they did not use puppetry animation

>>93961899

it's like cellshaded rig. it will always look off to eyes.Lifeless.

>>93964298
>>93965658

Everyone has been using digital for years, even disney renaissance used animation software. did you really think that people were still using fucking cameras for animation all this time?

>>93964298
>>93965836

Are there actually people on /co/ that think "traditional animation" means using a camera like some kind of fucking caveman?

File: 1354825513807.png (99KB, 400x386px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 400x386px

>>93965709

it's all about the profit. yeah.

>>93960481

sure you will, you need to hire animators, directors , producers, marketing team. and decide if you want to make "art" or easily marketable products.

>>93965894
It's not rare and people have said the same thing about anime (it used to be hand-drawn, but now it's all computer animated!).

File: 1484104397017.png (174KB, 329x298px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 329x298px

>>93959191
>>93965737
>grasping at straws this much

>>93965936
>>93965894

in times where stabilizers are in every single painting program, and there's technology to turn 2d drawings into 3d objects, how hard it to make something useful out of it?

>>93965936

You have no idea what you're talking about, nobody uses a motherfucking camera to animate anymore, there's no reason to when scanning everything into an animation program is easier and cheaper and does the exact same thing.

>>93966003
I'm pretty sure I didn't say anyone uses a camera.

File: knuckles mistake.jpg (15KB, 172x227px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 172x227px

>>93966048

OH my bad, I thought when you said "it's not rare" you were referring to people using cameras, not people thinking cameras were used.

>>93965965

What do you mean?

>>93965767
The problem is they make the mid-frames too smooth and the line work too clean.

>>93967955
It's 2D animated, just accept it

after Moana and Tangled

3D is really the way to go. hand drawn looks flat(lol) unless it was super stylized shit

>>93968851

That's the point of 2d. moving pictures.

>>93968715
It's not traditional animation though. Just compare Princess and the Frog to the Mlp movie. Puppet animation is not frame-by-frame hand drawn animation.

>>93958588
Only with indie works, just like with games.

>>93969612
Fucker, have you actually seen either?

File: 1500340653590.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>93968851
I kind of agree. Why would you go back to 2D when 3D is almost guaranteed to sell better and looks this good now?

>>93958588
No, so stop whining about it.

>>93958727
That won't happen now

>>93959841
>Wasting money on high paying celebrity voice actors,

This is a fucking business model in Japan.

>>93962698
3D has surpassed 2D

>>93958588
everyone a pixar needs to be lynched

>>93959544
to be fair, most anime in japan is just as low quality as the Tv cartoons we complain about here. it's just better looking low quality.

Quality in Japanese anime peaked in the 80's and 90's with the advent of digital techniques for color and shit, and the market changed as well, giving rise to easy to sell cutesy shit that doesn't depend on quality of animation.

>>93960429
That's because you can't. Period.

Even if you get out a tablet, and draw each frame by hand in a painting app, it's at best a simulation of *some* of the aspects of traditional animation, and even then it will have quirks unique to CGI and unless you take steps to add them, will lack the quirks of traditional animation - and the very act of doing that is a pretty wide step outside the realm of a traditional workflow. This means ironically, the more you attempt to get a traditional output from a computer, the less traditional your workflow can be in CGI.

There's just no path to traditional animation if you try to take a computer to get there. Either your output or your workflow are going to be deeply rooted in the experience of CGI, whether that's you or your audience.

And for the record, I'm not making a value statement about either one, and I've done plenty of both.

File: 7ff9219c2cf8057e1b4e67d9a2e744f0.jpg (373KB, 1359x734px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 1359x734px

honestly the best we can hope for is for that 3D/2D blended stuff to catch on, and thus trigger interest in 2D animation again.

We need stuff like Klaus to be successful.

https://vimeo.com/126287950

Maybe if it goes back in style. Kids think 2D is old fashioned and don't want to watch it.

>>93974380
>Kids think 2D is old fashioned and don't want to watch it.

They don't know they want to watch it. Big difference.

Get a kid to watch some classic Disney or the stuff Don Bluth was doing in the 80s and it holds their interest just fine.

>>93974380
>Kids think 2D is old fashioned and don't want to watch it.

[citation needed]

File: 1496281254676.jpg (18KB, 451x451px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 451x451px

I want to see a Roger Rabbit-esque movie where the point is 2D and 3D characters being at odds against each other

>>93975849
How would you feel about a Amazing World of Gumball movie?

>>93973869

you mean dreamworks.

What's keeping people from making their own animated films? Toonz is now open-source.

>>93977048
short attention span

also animation is jackshit without good writing

>>93977094
If you can't come up with any good ideas, just adapt a novel or comic.

2D theatrical animation is alive and well in france

>>93965767
That particular demonstration isn't great but I actually see potential in it. The movement follows the original animation too closely, but done correctly, and with more refined facial rigging I think it could work.

>>93965767
>it will always

Yeah, technology never improves or anything.