2D animation is kind of a hybrid medium of illustration and animation

>2D animation is kind of a hybrid medium of illustration and animation
>That's why I consider 3D animation to be a purer form of animation
>My perspective is, if we have had computers a hundred years ago, nobody would think of ever doing 2D animation.
>3D animation is constantly evolving and constantly getting better, whereas 2D isn't.
>The best 2D that's ever been produced has already been done... 50 years ago... I don't think it's gonna get better.
>That goes back to my idea that I think the animation should not draw attention to itself. It's not the experience of watching, it's what you're left with after it's over. That's really where my goal is, whatever you can do to achieve that state of mind you want to leave your audience in, the film is just a medium to achieve it.
>I want the animation to be invisible, I don't care about the technique, I don't care about the process.
>It's all about the characters and the stories and the ideas, never about the animation.
>The reason there are so many bad films made is that people are just so focused on the process.
This is coming from someone whose hand-animated show is lauded for its style! This blows my mind.

>The way the animation productions system is set up, is that artists are not allowed to make those creative decisions. Everything down to the frame is predetermined on exposure sheets.
>A live action director would not dream ever of making a film like that, telling an actor in how many frames he has to perform a certain gesture in. The emotional intent is never conveyed to the animator, the animator doesn't even know why a character has to lower its head, it just says "lower head in 16 frames."
>I told my animators what the scene is about and what needs to be conveyed. A lot of them, and this is very funny because they were so used to working in this assembly-line fashion, they'd say: it's hard enough for me to draw this character on-model, on top of that you want me to EXPRESS THIS EMOTION? It's too hard.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jwTjs0R7MEM
dailymotion.com/video/x286wjh_aeon-flux-s02e02-isthmus-crypticus_tv
youtube.com/watch?time_continue=79&v=OH3VeUiud7c
vimeo.com/97585925
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

youtube.com/watch?v=jwTjs0R7MEM

I tought you were cool peter

He's right. In a few years there will be 3d animation indistinguishable from 2d. And better looking than most faster and cheaper.

>It's all about the characters and the stories and the ideas, never about the animation
Then write a fucking book

2D animation is objectively more impressive just like how practical effects will always look better than CGI.

It's sad because he's a really good director and he has a really cool style. He's been working on these project no one ever watches even though at their core they could be really good.

There's this huge potential, he should just go to Pixar and pitch them a movie.

This

Same thing with comics. Yes a good story is important but I want the art to tell that story.

This. It's like comparing a rug made by hand compared to a machine. The little subtle nuances are what makes it great.

Wait he's saying animators aren't even shown the story or script or anything?

Also animation is the visual part of the visual medium you are in, why would you say it is never about the animation?
If only characters and stories mattered editing wouldn't be so long.

>3D animation is constantly evolving and constantly getting better, whereas 2D isn't.
>The best 2D that's ever been produced has already been done... 50 years ago... I don't think it's gonna get better.

i would expect this kind of thinking from a 70-year-old movie studio executive, not someone actually involved in the animation process

Well, this explains why everything he's made in the last 20 years looks hideous. I figured it was budget constraints, but I guess he likes it better this way.

You guys completely missed the point.

3d can't be indistinguishable from 2d by definition: 3d is about posing models into a scene, 2d is about creating the illusion of a scene.

He speak truths. We are told to follow orders, and creative decision is in preproduction, not production in most cases, and not done by animators. At least that's how I am being taught that most studio pipelines work.

The art is but a medium and as long as it covrys the story, any medium is fine. That's the point. Visual storytelling through visuals is still storytelling. Although the art form is important part of it, he's saying people are focusing on the process of creation more than the end result. Michael Bay, anyone? Its all process; cg, explosions, etc,. The end result: it's a shit movie. That's his point.

Hi John K.

>2d is about creating the illusion of a scene
>as if 3d is not

>hurr durr just read a book xD

fucking retard, I bet you've watched a ton of "2d" shows that were made using "3d" animation software and you never even noticed. Don't pretend to be an expert.

nah, when CGI done really well you don't even notice it and its seamless. But you guys can keep believing this until the day you die if you want.

no expert, just stating a fact.
A drawing has to cheat the eye into thinking that it's seeing something with depth, and it makes it easy to pass physically impossibile stuff for plausible, like when Mickey always has his ears in the same position no matter where he looks;
when working with 3d models and preps, you restrict yourself to work with something that simulates real physics to some degree, which makes it harder to pull off this kind of tricks.

Remember when people stopped putting paint on canvases and walls?

Me neither.

Remember when people started appreciating microwavable meals over those prepared by hand?

Yes convenience, speed, and economy are things, but you clearly don't understand art and the human experience.

this guy gets it

...

Mickey's ears is a shitty example because they don't look good in drawings either. If anything, they look better in 3D when a computer determines how to make them always face the camera.

Save for the first 5 lines, I think he's pretty much got a point.

He's right though.

We aren't at that point yet, but 5, 10 years down the line, 3d is going to be the way to go for pro studios. Amateur animation is still going to stick to 2D for a little while longer, but when television shows start putting out 3d as good as say, Miraculous Ladybug on a consistent basis it's all over.

It has a higher upfront cost, but in the long run it's going to save studios way more money, which is going to allow for more experimentation.

Unfortunately, this is going to turn the industry more into an exclusive club, where only people with the right connections will be able to get in, but you take what you can get.

Will Asian animators ever get to animating Asian women? Or is there whitegirl boner too strong for them too resist drawing blue eyed white blondes?

>inb4 Anime girls are japanese

uh, sure...

...

let's put it this way. anime characters are ambiguous perfectly beautiful representation of a human being.

anime characters don't look like average asians or average white people. But if you find the most beautiful of both races, then they're gonna start looking like actual anime characters.

>anime characters are ambiguous
yes
>perfectly beautiful representation of a human being
hahaha no

They're a step above stick figures so there's not enough detail to make them ugly. Half the time they don't even have noses, and the other half their noses are razor sharp.

>exaggerated caricature anime is representative of all anime as a whole

come on man, I'm not talking about that moe shit

You're just posting another extreme. Most anime doesn't look like that.

Nip girls sure are hot. They really look like anime, don't they?

because I find most anime that doesn't have "somewhat" realistic body proportions to be shitty

>the most beautiful real people look like anime characters
>but only the anime characters that look like beautiful real people

he's right

thats an interesting perspective. but it seems he has problem with the studio's production process for 2d animation rather than 2d animation itself. neither is going anywhere so theres no point in promoting one over the other.

Ironically peter chung can't draw or animate for shit. Nice guy though.

3D cheats too

>watch angry birds
>beaks and snouts change size, shape and/or get mirrored every time the character looks into a different direction

And i have come to point where i found anime girls more cute than real girls.

Well of course not. But i dont care because japs looks like shit.

>when CGI done really well you don't even notice it and its seamless

This this this.

But, with that being said, we're eons from this ideology becoming the norm; and countless shit studios and directors will hold us back from achieving it. You just have to go into CG while having a traditional mindset, and everything turns out alright, in my opinion.

So, from now, I'm in the 2D camp mainly. and I still love you, Peter.

>They're a step above stick figures so there's not enough detail to make them ugly.
Compared to the gritty realism of Johnny Test's American art style, right?

Of course not. Johnny Test is also about a step above stick figures, and the same principle applies: most cartoon (or anime) characters aren't detailed enough to be ugly.

Pic related. No wrinkles, no pores, no zits, no veins, no bags under the eyes, perfectly white eyeballs, perfectly white teeth, not a hair out of place, etc etc etc.

The lack of details makes cartoons and anime more "beautiful" than they really are.

3D Animation is a hybrid of sculpture and film.

I can't wait until we can do feature-length 2.5D movies, like Paperman.

Technically Disney can, they just don't want to.

The main difference (that's not quoted in the OP) is that once you have a 3D rig, you can view it from any angle, any lighting condition, any field of view, etc etc etc. That means that you don't have to work all these things out individually, and you're free to make a film.

With hand-drawn animation, you have to work all these things out every single fucking drawing you do. So the process of illustration keeps getting in the way of making a film.

In the video Chung says some people like it, but he wants the process to be invisible, he don't want people to appreciate the illustration nature of the film (strange, because he's so fucking good at it), he wants to make people think.

...

Dont let his fanboys catch you calling this shit ugly.

But goddamn is it fucking ugly

Also, the writing is shit and the characters are one dimensional at best. Fucking DBZ has more depth.

So kind of like how John Lasseter likes The Man Who Planted Trees?

I think you need to rewatch the show, the writing is amazing.
dailymotion.com/video/x286wjh_aeon-flux-s02e02-isthmus-crypticus_tv

In that episode you have a subordinate who is bitter about his boss, Trevor. The guy wants to overthrow Trevor and take his fucktoy. Guy tries to hire Aeon's services, she refuses and threatens to free the fucktoy, he threatens her back. Meanwhile she steals some documents and asks her friend to translate them. Her friend receives a photo of the fucktoy's lover who is also held captive. Meanwhile she can't find time to translate the documents. Aeon is forced to take her along on the mission so she can translate on-the-fly. As the mission progresses, they figure out that the documents, the guy, and the photo are all about the same fucktoy and her boyfriend. The translator was having trouble with her own boyfriend and has some sort of relationship with Aeon, and she's attracted to the fucktoy's boyfriend and has a breakdown because Aeon tells her she's going to free him. She tries to shoot Aeon, Aeon disarms her, tries to free the fucktoy and her boyfriend, but Trevor and the guy show up. The guy accidentally kills Trevor's fucktoy, Trevor kills the guy in revenge, the fucktoy's boyfriend takes Aeon's friend, Trevor warns her that the fucktoy's boyfriend is dangerous but they leave together anyway. Aeon tells Trevor that some couples are just not meant to be. In the epilogue, the fucktoy's boyfriend accidentally kills Aeon's friend (or so it's implied).

And it's all executed lucidly and brilliantly.

You got an episode that's all about relationships and how they're not meant to be, with seven characters who are all linked romantically, and four of them are linked "professionally".

That's some damn fancy writing, and that's not even touching on how entertaining it all is as it unfolds. It's not 2deep4u bullshit, it's simple but creative and interesting.

It will age like shit, the constant need to update 3d animation to be true to life is a huge detriment, that's why cel shaded cartoony cgi stuff still looks good, tron uprising will look good sure, but inside out will be hideous in the future

>3D animation is the superior replacement
>It's getting better all the time sky is the limit
So

Why hasn't 3D animation been able to replicate 2D animation

More Sup Forums than Sup Forums, but jesus christ I have yet to see 3D "anime" not look like absolute ass.

>He just stays completely motionless after he opens his mouth and moves his arm
>That clipping on the girl's bang
>Everyone taking turns to move
>Bad art style
Shitty animators is why.

>3D animation is constantly evolving and constantly getting better, whereas 2D isn't.
I could start painting and get better at it all the time, but that doesn't mean I'll become better than, say, Caravaggio.

>The best 2D that's ever been produced has already been done... 50 years ago... I don't think it's gonna get better.
This is true from the point of view of American animation, where the objective is to have as many drawings as possible and make the animation as fluid as possible. Of course it didn't take long at all to reach the limits of this approach.

Anime, meanwhile, is about different kinds of animation, and also about different kinds of filmmaking and storytelling. Shaft for example is known for their odd framing, angles and editing, which doesn't have too much to do with animation. There are no discernible limits to the anime approach.

>That goes back to my idea that I think the animation should not draw attention to itself.
>I want the animation to be invisible, I don't care about the technique, I don't care about the process.
>It's all about the characters and the stories and the ideas, never about the animation.
If you make good animation, anyone who cares about animation will notice. So the only way I see this working is if you make the most inconspicuously bog standard animation possible, which will greatly limit your ability to express your characters, story and ideas.

This doesn't have a small budget, as I understand it. Literally unwatchable.

Emulation is always more effort than the real thing. Law of Emulation.

You'll notice successful 3D animation doesn't even TRY to imitate 2D animation (Pixar, Disney, etc).

>2D animation is kind of a hybrid medium of illustration and animation
>That's why I consider 3D animation to be a purer form of animation.

This is horse shit. Its like I called 3D a hybrid between model sculpting and animation, or scene composing and animation.

>It's all about the characters and the stories and the ideas, never about the animation

>Animation is irrelevant to animated works.

Is this guy serious?

>Emulation is always more effort than the real thing
>successful 3D animation doesn't even TRY to imitate 2D animation
Reminder:
The big push for early CGI by studio execs is making a generation of people who grew up under an entirely new kind of aesthetic theory which had to abandon the old.
This will perpetuate itself in 15-20 years as they in turn enter the industry.

Maybe. Depends on what kind of 2D animation it is. Anime has been trying for years, but even background characters far away from the camera stick out. They are just too clinically perfect and consistent in their movements and appearance (made worse by the fact that anime isn't a stickler for being on-model). Maybe, with enough work, you could get them to look right, but how long would that take? Different anime also look different, and even different episodes or scenes within the same anime can look different, so you would have to be constantly remaking or adjusting your models and animation.

"Anime characters don't look Japanese, therefore they must look white" is not valid reasoning. It's a false dichotomy.

>japanesebeauty.jpg
Butthurt, jealous feminists are trying really hard to push this idea that only Asian women wear makeup and use beauty products while white women are all natural beauties (and healthy in all sizes of course).

It just occured to me that if he's talking about 3D animation in those last quotes then yes I guess the animation will be invisible. There's little that's interesting or individual about 3D animation.

nah man nips don't use makeup at all. all natural.

He just sounds burned out and bitter about working in the american animation industry, which isn't hard to believe. The answer isn't technological fetishism, though.

I didn't say they don't use makeup. You feminists are just spreading propaganda that only Asian women use it.

It always bother me how detailed they could make some of the faces but left Faye's so blank.
To me, she never looked right next to someone like Jet or even the dog.

Jet is also old, grizzled and male.

Layers of makeup do that.

>>>/Tumblr/
>>>/SRS/
>>>/Twitter/

Am I racist or are japanese women look like? Anyways they're too pretty for this earth.

>if we have had computers a hundred years ago, nobody would think of ever doing 2D animation.
If we had computers hundreds of years ago I wouldn't be watching cartoons now. I would be FUCKING cartoons!

>The best 2D that's ever been produced has already been done... 50 years ago... I don't think it's gonna get better.
That doesn't mean that we should stop doing 2D animation. 3D will never look exactly like 2D so both will keep having a different feel to them. It's the same as pixillated games vs 3D games, or practical effects vs CGI. Yes it is generally cheaper to produce, and you can do more with it, but it's still nice to go back to the older style once in a while since it has a different feel it it. Shovel Knight wouldn't have been what it was if it had been 3D, and the Thing (2011) would most likely have been a more enjoyable film if they had stuck with the practical effects, which they had already shot the scenes with. I still like a good puppets show once in a while, even if we have cartoons.

>woosh

Damage control.

Are you retarded?

Are you?

but then why deal in animation? If you aren't going to use the medium to its fullest, why not just make something live action.

based don ramon

It's not as seamless. For example, it looked really weird in the Peanuts movie.

The point is; 3d often tries and fails to imitate 2D animation, giving off these uncanny results, whereas 2D can easily pull off today what argues as making 3D animation superior with relative ease.
I'm sure 3D will be eventually able to fully imitate 2D in these regards, but my point is that you can't call one "superior" to the other. But 2D has more artistic value imo.

The end result is good, so yes, they kind of do

>Muh 2D
>Muh practical effects
You fags are cut from the same cloth. Literally the only reasoning is nostalgia.

>But 2D has more artistic value imo

I agree with him. 2D animation goes straight from brain to paper and lets artists express themselves more freely and in a way that's uniquely theirs. It's also driven more by the efforts of individual artists than 3D animation.

You shouldn't fall for dummies like that.

Chung may be right about the future of the industry, but it seems like there isn't much coming from him to warrant his lampooning. The medium itself is also far too young to not concern itself almost wholly with progress, which makes it diametrically opposed to his stance; everything to do with 3-d animation is at this point, at the beck of technique, the artistic sensibility seems only to be used in the same exact sense as 2d, where it still exists as framework peeking through, and pipelines must still be followed.
It's also weird that he would be concerned with what equates to best when that's entirely dependent on the artist, not on the technique.
He's right, and I still like his past work, but the intention doesn't seem right, like misguided from an artistic sensibility, and consumed with progress for progress's sake. He can't rely on words to convince anyone of this, and if this had been substituted with a show and tell, I would probably be convinced

Pic related

that's just your nostalgia talking

You say that like 2D animation is a thing of the past. Japan made more animated features last year than America, and most of them were 2D.

2d animation isn't bad, it's just a peaked medium.

>practical effects will always look better than CGI.

Fun fact

The 2011 "prequel" to John Carpenter's "The Thing" was nearly completed with practical effects by Amalgamated Sudios.

Executives decided that was "too 80's" and ordered CGI over the top of their work after touring the WIP on set.
They also decided the appearance of the UFO's pilot's form when The Thing is first encountered was too confusing for audiences (it had Matrix-style bio-ports to interface with the ship). So they CGI's over it with what the studio jokingly referred to as the "tetris" hologram by the film's director and spliced in the CGI Sander's Thing instead.

youtube.com/watch?time_continue=79&v=OH3VeUiud7c

2D animation can evolve and get better though

How has it peaked?

vimeo.com/97585925

tldw
hollywood studio decisions a shit

fuck quico and doña florinda, desu

But that is why you stick with 2D.

I've often said this, but the main draw to 2D is that is limited only by artistic ability and your imagination. All those acid-trippy over exaggerated and form shifting animations of the 80s are much more equipped to a character with no solid form to begin with. If you want someone to seemlessly transform into a butterfly or something entirely new, the only thing you need is to draw it. You don't have ego make a new model and then create a subroutine that transitions one to the other. 2D just feels more like a creative process unhindered by the solidity things like actors and a set do Which is essentially what 3D is emulating.