2D vs CGI

2D animation has been surpassed by 3D. Prove me wrong
youtube.com/watch?v=XbYO16VsfQ4
youtu.be/lIyFNDfsdiU?list=LL7KSZna6vofauY1bsm6X3bQ

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/M_XwzBMTJaM?list=LL7KSZna6vofauY1bsm6X3bQ
youtube.com/watch?v=xEKYxkNJEYg
youtu.be/cmZXJsklxSA?list=LL7KSZna6vofauY1bsm6X3bQ
youtu.be/Ala8dGr1soU
youtube.com/watch?v=MMd0qKUwZMw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

There's a place for everything and everyone has their own personal taste.
GGEZ

Well yeah but most of the time 3D animation doesn't look as smooth as that examples you give. Often times it's pretty stilted and is basically just puppets.

Why does everything look like taxidermy?

Did Tintin movie flop? I liked it.

If the value of the technique is in the individual complexity of each final image, sure. You definitely aren't missing any kind of point there, champ

...

It made its budget twice over as well as receive good acclaim from critics and fans alike. It did alright.

Budget
$135 million
Box office
$374 million

Pretty much what says, but for the fact that CGI's fat Jew nose is everywhere and 2D is an endangered species.

So fuck CGI

Those 72 hours before people forgot about it were truly memorable

2D looks better, but it has more of a stigma as being "for kids". It also costs less but takes longer to make. These companies care more about assembly line-ing these things out than they do about them having long-lasting appeal for decades to come.

Don't blame CGI for 2D's failings. Blame people not watching any 2D films to begin with.

>The Red Turtle showcased last year
>No one even talks about it

Well, i hope there's going to be sequel someday. This world needs more comic book movies.

is just cheaper user

>2D looks better
Action sequences looks better in CGI

youtu.be/M_XwzBMTJaM?list=LL7KSZna6vofauY1bsm6X3bQ

> No one even talks about it

I OPed a thread once about it with a pic of the turtle and "*blocks your path*" as the title and the mods banned me for a week. So somebody else do that, thank you

The mods here are SJW lunatics.

For fuck sake ,why?

Works on my machine

Jackson said he'd get back to a sequel after he finished The Hobbit. So its either currently in production or the Hobbit Trilogy sapped his desire to ever make movies again.

Yeah, but according to Box Office Mojo, 77.6 million was from the domestic audience. Given the standard rules for calculating box office profit margins, that means that about half of that went to the studio. Overseas profits are an even smaller fraction of revenue. And then there are the advertising costs to consider. Even if it did make a profit in the end, it wasn't that much compared to what studios might like. A sequel might not get a higher budget if not an outright lower one to hedge the producers' bets.

It's kind of a shame too given that I really would have liked to have seen other stories in the series get adapted.

is this the only instance where a drunktard was portrayed in positive light?

his burp saved their lives!

That's only because not too many people have attempted good action sequences in 2D. I'll gladly take an awesome 2D action sequence over a similar sequence in 3D. If anybody ever actually bothers.

>Red Herring villain of the comics
>actual villain of the film
FUCK YOU, SPIELBERG!

"Sculpture has surpassed painting. prove me wrong". You're comparing apples to oranges

why do people always compare 2d and 3d animation when 3d animation is obviously more linked to stop motion animation?

One Old Master actually held this opinion didn't he? Can't remember which.

This.

That was such bullshit. He could have just poured the bottle in the plane.

he drank it!

The problem 2-D animators have is that they lack the proper ability to animate an enviroment like a 3D animated film does.

Think about it, 3D animated films are blocked in an artificial enviroment (a set) with in-engine "cameras" that can be placed in locations as if they were actualy there, and they can roughly simulate real textures.

The way 3D animated films are done and blocked should be how 2D artist think...3Dimensionally. I mean, looks at pic related. This is an acceptable example of western animation. This whole, overly-revealing shot. For some reason, we always use the angles as if trying to show as much of the characters as possible, or their boddies at least. This shot would NOT be acceptable in 3D film fr more than two seconds.

It all comes down to not knowing how cinematography works in 2D cartoons because most people lack the ability to imagine them being in 3D.

Hell, even Disney's early films have this flaw. Notice how they always try to show as much of Snow White as possible, leading to angles that, if translated into 3D, would feel less cinematic.

The problem isn't that 3-D is surpassing 2-D, but rather than our lower standards of 2-D hinders it's progress to feel as impactful and cinematic as 3-D films.

> Screenplay by: Steven Moffat

That asshole follows the modern trend of basing half his writing in subverting what people expect based on stablished source material.

Because Stop-Motion was never mainstream. 3D has effectively replaced 2D as the most common technique used, specially in high-profile productions

>not too many people have attempted good action sequences in 2D
Are you fucking kidding me? There are plenty of amazing 2D action sequences in anime, cartoons and movies. The CGI is the one that lacks of good action. We need more CGI action. It looks amazing

youtube.com/watch?v=xEKYxkNJEYg

That would look even more amazing in 2D.

Of course not

Of course it would. 2D inherently looks more impressive in 3D. It's just a hell of a lot more expensive and requires a lot more skill/effort.

>2D inherently looks more impressive in 3D
Well yeah, 3D looks more impressive. That is my point

Not at all. Everything in 3D would look superior in 2D if anybody took the time and care to do it. Of course it would. People use 3D because it's easier.

You have brain damage

Nah, but I'm assuming the only reason you hold that opinion is that you probably work in 3D animation and are trying to justify your profession despite your lack of drawing ability.

Sorry, your "art" sucks and nobody will ever give you any individual credit for your work. But at least you got paid.

A lot of anime movies have pulled off trick camera shots and movements very well. Disney attempted to but kept falling back on the use of CG to help back with Mouse Detective to eventually just going all CG entirely.

I don't know why 2D American movies didn't utilize camera movements more other than time. I mean, the Little Mermaid ship wreck scene took a year to animate.

This. Also, wanting for the next Godzilla movie. The Kong movie was fucking CGI kino youtu.be/cmZXJsklxSA?list=LL7KSZna6vofauY1bsm6X3bQ

On another note, it's really nice to see Warner Bros. revive Looney Tunes with pretty good and smooth animation

That's pretty great (except for the sniper wearing a Dracula cape), but it's not quite the same thing.

The background tracking trick is pretty standard stuff, but it works better when used for far away environments (such as in this case), which don't shift the view of individual elements that much anyway. Enclosing, close-quarters environments (such as in Mouse Detective or Little Mermaid) couldn't be made with a single plate, and the draftmanship required to pull them off frame by frame without real or generated footage surpases pretty much any level of skill that has ever been achieved.

The Tintin movie may have not lived to everyone's expectations, but GOD FUCKING DAMN if the CGI displayed isn't some of the absolute best ever seen in animation

studio?

Moffat thrives off of making his writing seem smart for people that never read the source material. That's how Sherlock got so popular.

fucking unnecessary, 2D is far better that this overcomplex shit. do the same shit with the classic 2D and it would be better, we don´t need fucing carse in 3/4 shoot, nor a fuckton of shades. For me it`s fucking shit.

Weta, I think

the way the comics portrayed him was very nuanced
when Tintin meets him, he's a wreck because of overindulgence. But deep down he's still a good person with a serious problem that was being exploited by the people closest to him (Alan was actively feeding his addiction to keep him as a puppet).
When, encouraged by Tintin who at first has no reason to hide the ugly truth from him and later on becomes a genuine friend, he starts treating alcohol with more moderation that deep down good person comes out and he slowly starts to get his life back on its rails.

I did like that you see a bit of that coming out at the end of the movie - with Haddock sobering up (a bit) and starting to replace his thirst for alcohol with a thirst for adventure.

They may cost less for the first movie, but cgi give reusable assets. So it's a larger initial investment that pays off later. That's a key drawing factor for the modern studio looking to make franchises.

>that fucking sequel hook

Arghhh, it was so good!

i despise Illumination. they brought girls back, they didn't change them at all, and reused old jokes in the fucking trailer.

>How's your thirst for adventure, Captain?
>... Unquenchable.
I'd be lying if I said I didn't get goosebumps during that whole scene. REALLY hope they do the sequel at some point.

And he frequently lets fan praise go to his head and overindulges in what people like. I haven't watched a single episode of the latest Dr Who because it seems theyre all part of one big 'deep' story arc when I just want a fun episodic anthology show.

Believe me - you're not missing anything. Bill is probably the worst companion in decades and the writing this season has been fucking dreadful.

>not posting the best cgi short
youtu.be/Ala8dGr1soU

It's getting one. They're doing Prisoners of the Sun.

WE

WAZ

>Gotg
>Valerian

neat.

Why do 2Dfags hate 3D so much?

>hate

nah, we just miss full 2d features

THEN WHY DIDN'T ANY OF YOU FUCKS SEE THE RED TURTLE? OR THE GIRL WITHOUT HANDS? OR THE PROPHET? OR ANY OF THE OTHER EUROPEAN TRADITIONALLY ANIMATED MOVIES! IF YOU WANTED IT SO MUCH YOU'D ACTUALLY LOOK FOR THEM YOU SHITHEADS.

What is the point of your image, OP? If the "endgame" of CGI animation is photorealism then why animate media at all? Will CGI animation make itself obsolete? NO, because people will always want animation. There are sequences in The Thief & The Cobbler that still surpass anything CGI animation can offer, likewise Spirited Away and Princess Kaguya.

Because they're manchildren that just want Disney waifus.

>What is the point of your image, OP?
First result on Google

>If the "endgame" of CGI animation is photorealism
The endgame of the CGI is being good at everything.

Man, I'm still salty that I only had one opportunity to see the one showing of The Prophet anywhere remotely near my area, and I couldn't get off from work.

2d and 3d are forma of art.
what really makes the difference is the artist behind it .
At least on 2d ,
because on 3d what matter are the 20 programmers and scientists .

That movie was the absolute antithesis of the Uncanny Valley. The characters looked great, I never felt uncomfortable looking at them in the slightest.

First world countries only

Then do it genuinely and not annoyingly

I don't think you understand how mediums work. It's like saying photography has surpassed oil painting. You can't just claim one kind of art is better than the other on grounds of versatility or ease of use. That's has nothing to do with the quality of the art itself or what the appeal of the medium is.

Read somewhere Spielberg is a genuine fan of the comics so there's a possibility for a sequel
and course a good number of the Tintin comics lend themselves for a movie adaptation fairly easily, especially the dual issues.

You can't make a CGI movie that has the same quality as a blizzard trailer

Why not live action the movie at that point?

Yes, you can. The current movies are as complex as those trailers. The difference is the arstyle

The difference is runtime

There's something really unquantifiable about 2d animation...a warmth, or something? I don't know.
CGI can enhance live-action really well when it's used well but on it's own, like the Tintin film...too uncanny valley

That animation is fine, but that rendering is awful. It looks like it's trying to be painted, but instead it's over textured and has elements of pillow shading to it.

>something really unquantifiable about 2d animation
How obvious the human hand was in the construction of it.

Because those have limited releases and unless you live in a major city, will most likely have to wait for a streaming service to see it.

As for why people didn't watch it yet online, that's something to complain about. Netflix tried its goddamn hardest to promote The Little Prince and people still didn't care.

>but on it's own, like the Tintin film...too uncanny valley
Depends on the artstyle

Well, that is one thing, but not even that...really can't describe it.
Obviously, that's why I specifically said the Tintin film. The texture on the lining of the cape in your image is done well...

The Tintin movie had some of the greatest setpieces I've ever seen. The crane fight was incredible and the duel between Rackham and Haddock's ancestor was one of the best sword fights ever put to film.

Creepy Tarkin says you're wrong.

At this point at least it was different. Unlike standardPixar00003821

The terms animator and artist have never been so far apart from one another thanks to that industrial pipe.

Thoughts? youtube.com/watch?v=MMd0qKUwZMw

I only ever saw passing ads for TinTin, and I'm still amazed it's not the live action film I thought it was at the time.

Holy shit June Foray is still alive. Is she one of the last animation Golden Age people left?
>Peter Pan
>Squaw
>She also served as the model for one of the mermaids
She was apparently a fox in her younger days as well.

Etotama was pretty to look at but had no meat to it.
Wouldn't go as far as to say it was all style and no substance but damn it got close.

>weeaboo shit
trash

Easy - 2D is actually easier to accomplish a lot of CGI has to work hard to get write (e.g. water, hair, etc.)

At some point, in some nebulous future, it MIGHT be possible that CGI will be able to replicate the best of 2D, but we're not there yet, son.

>5 1/2 years later
>still no progress on the Tintin sequel
For fucks sake.

What is the best of 2D?

>_____ would look better in _____ if anybody took the time and care to do it.

>Everything in 3D would look superior in 2D

Like?

...