Why has 2 animation died in the movie industry?

Why has 2 animation died in the movie industry?

Other urls found in this thread:

rotoscopers.com/2015/02/27/former-disney-veteran-explains-why-big-studios-have-abandoned-2d-animation/
blogofoa.com/2012/06/our-exclusive-conversation-with.html
dailypop.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/green-lantern-the-animated-series/
youtube.com/watch?v=Nf8B0mTwBo0
youtube.com/watch?v=FmNzYOK2Qgk
youtube.com/watch?v=qSZ5H79kMXI
youtube.com/watch?v=PBFKj6_p-Q0
hollywoodreporter.com/news/japan-box-office-your-name-helps-2016-revenue-hit-record-21b-967826
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>2
fuck I meant 2d

My balls itch.

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

kids dont want it, parents think its baby shit

...

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.

Animating with drawings is outdated now that we have CGI.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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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

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

Because Pixar.

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

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

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.

>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.

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

Yeah we gotta get them attracted to cgi women now.

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.

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

because is more than 2 so its better

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.

>for DECADES

More like nearly a Century.

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.

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

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

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.

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 Sup Forums, 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.

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.

Because people got lazy.

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

"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."

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

And yet other veterans say 2D is cheaper.

And remember that GOOD CG costs a shitload.

>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.

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.

yeah yeah we've all watched that one youtube video

Blame Disney

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Theres a youtube video saying this?

>2D is not more time consuming

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

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

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.

Nothing will ever beat real instrument.

...

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

Source: nephews

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

>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.

Gotta do it by degrees, user.

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.

I'm talking time here, not budget.

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"

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:
youtube.com/watch?v=Nf8B0mTwBo0 (Haruka and the magic mirror)
youtube.com/watch?v=FmNzYOK2Qgk

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

>implying anime matters
HAHAHAHAHAHA

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

3D anime was a mistake.

This

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.

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.

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

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.

Americans have shit taste

>tfw no movies using the paperman technique

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

Thats the "Illusion of life"

What was the OP gif from?

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

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

It's expensive and children prefer 3D

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

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.

cause no one cares about niggers user.

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?

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!

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

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

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

HOGWASH.

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

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 Sup Forums want me to tell them

minions are for babies, anime is for kino gourments

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

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

"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.

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.

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.