When are you going to admit that 3D animation is technically more impressive, complex...

When are you going to admit that 3D animation is technically more impressive, complex, and proficient than 2D animation is, user?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=99Op1TaXmCw
youtube.com/watch?v=FYsaUMc8jaM
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>impressive
no

>complex
usually true but genius animators have made sequences rivaling cgi, it's more about the time and efforts it takes that something the technlogy just allows.

>proficient
what?

3d animation is a team effort. Notice how almost no non industry person can name a single animator that got famous for their 3d animation skill, only studios and shows?

Your point?

Probably that team effort is good.

Moana proved that 3D animation can be superior to 2D

Jesus Christ why is all the animation so twitchy? Can't they at least try to make it look normal or at least not retarded?

Can't I just like both and not make it a pissing contest?

What the fuck are you even talking about?

Look at when the girl turns around and when the guy throws her off the boat. Zero weight. Looks like animation from a PS1 game.

3D animation is basically virtual stop-motion where all the jank has been removed and streamlined. No need to commit to a scene, for example, since you can always go back to each frame and edit it. Same with the models, textures and effects.

2D animation is exactly just drawing the same image countless times, except a bit different each time. It takes way more effort.

Not commenting on which one is better but 2D is obviously more difficult and impressive when done well. Both are capable of beautiful end results but one is objectively more complex.

It was probably done for comedic effect. The whole scene he clipped is a gag.

Call me when 3d has the equivalent of Akira

>Like when the girl turns around
>Part literally shows weight when her hair slaps herself and she twitches

Define what that entails.

Shitty bait, but this is interesting to talk about.

I've never dealt with CG animation, but animating the hair in or Frozen must be an absolute nightmare. 2D animation offers more creativity because weight doesn't factor in as much. CG animation is cursed to always be "cartoons, but 'realistic'". This isn't necessarily a negative, but it's not exactly a positive either

He probably means Wall-E and Toy Story and Bolt and the Incredibles and tons more.

>Sup Forums ever admitting something 3D looks better than 2D
lmao

When Clements and Musker stop proving me wrong.

You are insane and possibly blind.

>This entire post

...

>Frozen
Wot? I'd agree if you said Brave or Zootopia (all that fur), but there's nothing impressive about Frozen.

That's not how snakes move.

My favorite parts of Moana were the 2D segments.

...

rango's one of the few times cgi actually looks dirty. most 3d animation looks sterile and clean.

Too bad the movie was so bad, huh?

>impressive,
There is nothing that 3d animation can do that 2d animation cannot.

>complex,
Both have similar levels of complexity for similar budgets.

>proficient
Proficiency is a budget and time factor not a 2d vs 3d difference.

>he thought Rango was bad

That while you will always have team effort end products, 2d will always exist as an option for an individuals creative outlet.

Are you too fucking stupid to get that without it being spelled out?

Never. 2D animation is just more beautiful.

All westerns are bad. The only exceptions being those that parody the genre and rip off Akira Kurosawa.

That's a poor way to look at things user. It's too much of a cynical view. Try to be more critical. Explain what you don't like about it. And if Westerners aren't your style, then don't condemn everyone else for not liking the things you don't like

Honestly I don't think many people who really hate CGI are on Sup Forums, given how frequently it's used in todays industry. It's tough to avoid, and I personally think CGI can look very nice actually. Nice backdrops, good detail, and the thing is, CGI is still evolving.
I do like 2D animation a whole lot, hand drawn is beautiful and flows so well, which is a given when you consider the time it takes I guess. Moment to moment

Are there any 2D purists on Sup Forums? Even if there aren't, what is it you like about hand drawn animation so much in comparison to CGI? Interested in takes

The ice is nice, but yeah looking back at Frozen now, a lot of it looks dated even though it's not that old.
That new Frozen short coming out this Winter does look nice in the trailer they released though. Nothing spectacular in there, just nice CGI and designs.
Rango's a damn visual treat.

They're formulaic and western america doesn't allow for interesting scenery. The wild west isn't a very compelling setting in the first place, literally anywhere else in the world at that point in time would allow for superior storytelling.

..snow animation?

What can 2d do that 3d can't?

This is an objectively wrong opinion and I'm sorry to hear that you are cursed with it.

youtube.com/watch?v=99Op1TaXmCw

things like thesse

They're two entirely separate artforms, drawing in 2D and modeling in 3D. I hate 3D because it literally killed my favorite medium.

Going purely on visual appearance I dislike 3D because it looks like a cutscene from a video game whereas 2D brings to my mind comics. I like comics, do you?

he's not wrong though. You should stop defending Disney's brand because it's big.

Angry 2d animators being angry that they wasted their time and money learning a craft that nobody really needs anymore in the 21st century.

It's true that a lot of westerners rely on the dusty sand hell. That is very boring and they hardly sum up what the desert is like. I actually live in the desert southwest, and it has a lot of vegetation, wildlife, and interesting scenery. But unfortunately, we got stereotyped and dusty sand hell. Now the wild west was interesting at the time because civilizations were starting there, it was chaotic, a constant battle of Man vs Environment and Man vs Man. Hell, they even mixed together sometimes. It was also interesting to watch the constant battle of the law versus outlaws, thieves and hostile native americans. You'd always be wondering if their civilization could survive these hardships.

Disney is going to use CGI forever, it helps them produce movies. Like that infamous Zootopia case; for two years they were making some disturbing Noir movie about oppressed minorities, and couple of months before the deadline they changed into a decent Buddy Cop movie about stereotypes.

>There's nothing impressive about Frozen.
When you say that, I assume you're talking about characters, plot, its overrated reputation, etc.
I'm talking about the animation. They've got the hair animation right down to the strand, that's pretty impressive, if not completely obsessive

A story about native americans will always be infinitely more interesting than some gun-toting hoodlums.

Lawrence of Arabia made the desert look fucking amazing, the west just sucks in cinema.

That's selling it short, Zootopia was surprisingly clever and had excellent writing. I think the overall subject of a movie is overrated, Fantasia is just about random shit happening but everything seems to make sense while you're watching it.

Yep, same thing with How To Train Your Dragon.

CG actually allows movies to get sudden re-writes and become better films almost overnight, compared to 2D where if once they pass a threshold with a bad script, they just need to keep going until it's done and then write it off. Look at the vast amount of shit 2D movies Disney has made that might've be saved if the were forced to re-do the production in a year's time. Something like Brother Bear or Treasure Planet might actually be memorable.

I do

Except the plot we have been getting out of them have been trash outside Pixar

Princess and the frog is still the last good princess movie with a decent plot

Moana's animation is great, but the plot was garbage

>implying Brother Bear wasn't memorable

They spent like 15 years planning Treasure Planet. It was just fucked. And sometimes having too much free time is a bad thing, Wall-E would've been better if they had cut as much as possible out of the second half.

Always avoided it because Disney was still bad when it released, but I'm about to watch it now because dat soundtrack.

NO.

They just need to find their niche, It's like with indie videogames. Only huge blockbusters count, so people with original idea are working on small projects. All they need is to make them profitable.

I'd argue Zootopia being another one where flaws are allowed to exist and there's actual dirty and such in the environment.

they lucked out because someone hinted them you could apply animal stereotypes to people of color.

The hair in Frozen is fairly basic stuff; nothing Disney hadn't done before. Moana and Brave have fantastic hair animation, while Frozen's is just decent.

The Incredibles achieved it ages ago. Violet's hair was the most difficult of the animations for the team.

You are correct. Although, may I suggest that you watch Gunsmoke. It's an old westerner show, which was created to be a deep, real drama compared to other western shows at the time. It actually displays the desert and how it is, and has compelling storylines, although the episodes are episodic. I kinda wish we had a tv show about Native Americans, but modern tv would turn it into trash

>3d animation is a team effort.

So is 2d animation, because of the sheer amount of work it requires. Golden Era Disney days a single animator had 3 assistants each.

youtube.com/watch?v=FYsaUMc8jaM

this

Hair physics in Frozen weren't a new technical innovation in that movie. The snow physics were.

Nothing really given enough time. The key thing to remember is that both 2d and 3d animation both have their own advantages and disadvantages.

2D has several things that it can do far easier than 3d and 3d has several things it can do far easier than 2d.

Its more people lamenting the fact that producers are throwing money at 3d studios since the overwhelming success of Toy Story rather than using both sets of tools to their full extent.

>Treasure Planet might actually be memorable.
Treasure Planet is more the victim of being overshadowed by Lilo & Stitch which came out 5 months earlier.

so was PatF , nothing but swamp.

and they blamed Avatar for its failure.

Does anyone even remember the plot of TPatF? That movie is an animated paradox: it's very competently done in every aspect, yet it leaves no impression whatsoever.

Probably. Coincidentally, with the death of westerns the interest in indians dropped significantly.

I liked The Unforgiven, but I just don't see why it had to be set in the west. Gran Torino showed pretty clearly why such movies work perfectly fine pretty much anywhere.

Wasn't it a genderswapped version of the Frog Prince?

Every second of PatF was art, and the plot felt really satisfying thanks to the strong characters. And it didn't fail either, it just wasn't Tangled/Frozen/Zootopia.

>what is it you like about hand drawn animation so much in comparison to CGI? Interested in takes
Mostly 2d animation can have a wide range of styles, 3d is limited to realism/semi realism(unless a 3d animator is willing to go the extra mile of creating models of character being deformed/transformed). I actually like it when a 3d animation doesn't look like it's mimicing disney/pixar.
it's pretty easy to learn 3d animation if you can do 2d animation. just move the model into the keyframes poses and let the computer do the inbetweens.

Anyone have a webm of the part where Moana asks the Sea to split then walks through? That looked fantastic

i dont know why people would want only one or the other. both are cool and i respect them.

Not at all. It's an amazing film.

>nothing Disney hadn't done before
You two seem to have the notion that "done before" means "unimpressive". I'm not saying Frozen did hair animation the best, nor am I saying it's the first to do it. I'm saying their animation, especially in the hair department, is impressive and a bit obsessive. I know this might be new to Sup Forums, but not everything is either/or

>Are there any 2D purists on Sup Forums? Even if there aren't, what is it you like about hand drawn animation so much in comparison to CGI?

3D is closer to puppet and stop-motion animation than 2D, you can appreciate them both for different reasons.

so this is how dreamworks saved fired disney(toons) animators from unemplyment

Christ, 3 whole people making shit up. I never said it was new, I said it was impressive. Why is Sup Forums so illiterate?

>Notice how almost no non industry person can name a single animator that got famous for their 3d animation skill
Monty Oum

What? No, there's a prince who's turned into a frog by a curse and promises the main character a bunch of stuff if she'll kiss him to fix it.
It goes wayy off the rails from the old story from that point on, but it's hardly gender-flipped.

When it becomes the truth.

When it becomes any of those things.

2D Animation is a technical achievement that is the result of a skilled artist.

3D Animation is a technical achievement that is the result of a digital puppeteer. Its just a puppet show, where the artists are not animators, but set designers, material designers and a lot of programmers. Its not a better system- if anything its just a way to avoid paying an incredibly skilled individual. Its just embarrassing that people claim this is cheaper.

not cheapier, more efficient.

animated a dancer.

and now animate the dancer from the bird view.
3d is the solution

>where the artists are not animators
They are animators
>if anything its just a way to avoid paying an incredibly skilled individual
As if the set designers, material designers and programmers weren't incredibly skilled individuals. I'm not even disagreeing with you, but the way you phrased that was stupid

Well, there's also the element of 2D digital animation. There's actually a pretty good amount of cross over between the two field, and much of the 3D pipeline is taken from 2D animation.

For example, you say "animated a dancer," but you don't mention the resources allowed to the animator, or what kind of a skill they can possess. If they use, say, a polygonal reference animation to make this animation really work. The process is considerably simpler. If they use a physical reference, they can easily think in 3D and use their reference's stage to map out the performance.

3D is A solution. Its a considerably more efficient solution than hand drawing everything and that's why 2D is a dying art.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

I saw it in theatres, and it really wasn't the slightest bit memorable.

Wew

That tells you just how much I absorbed about the movie through pop-culture osmosis.

The ads did focus a lot on the princess getting turned into a frog.

>not cheapier, more efficient.
Only to an extent.

3D is great for building assets that can easily be reused but creation of new assets takes far more time and money than creation of similar 2d assets.

Not seeing anything special in that.

>the artists are not animators
You are aware that 3D animation follows the same principles as regular animation, and is storyboarded in 2D, right? They don't just drag some assets around on a computer, and the film magically works. These films do have real animators, concept artist, designers, etc. Why do people not know this, or pretend it's inferior somehow? The process is more intricate.

I never saw the movie, is that the goddess who ate Maui with her vagina?

>Formulaic [..] literally anywhere else in the world at that point in time would allow for superior storytelling.
>Post American Civil War.
>"End of an era" Mexican Civil War.
>From big, historical American epics to small tales of greed and revenge in tiny towns.
>Nature and civilisation clashing along the frontier, of which the development of the railroad is a symbol of.
As with most historical events of similar scale, the Western frontier and its development are an excellent setting for a wide range of stories. The Westerns that matter are rarely just simple cookie-cutter tales of men and their horses.

>friend goes to expensive school for game/movie animation
>quickly discoverers he's one of the few people in his classes who is an artist
>then finds out from his teachers you don't even need artistic talent to be in this industry, just knowledge of how the programs work and how to set things up, like two characters talking
>most his teachers, who had worked in the industry, also couldn't make good or pleasing images, in 3D or on paper
>most of the work in these movies is closer to programming than anything resembling art

By the way, this is why almost everything in most 3D animation looks like ugly blocks/basic shapes. It's not unheard of for almost no one on a 3D animation team to be an artist. While some 3D animated movies like Zootopia look fantastic, there are 10 more that look like the Emoji movie,The Good Dinosaur, Inside Out, etc. And yes, this is why things have moved to 3D. It's a much better/easier business model to not need an entire team of artists. As long as you can apply faces to your ugly random shapes and have the programmers animate them well, things don't need to look good.

I already admitted that with Zootopia. Seeing fur on animals is important. Seeing how fur on animals would affected clothing is also important.

Except it isn't.

Imagine being retarded

We've already gone into detail why westerns are bad. You're doing a terrible job at opposing that.

As much as I love that movie, the city looked too clean. There's a few scenes allowed to be dirty, but for the most part it's perfect to the point of there not being cracks in the cement.

Read More closely.

I'm sorry that American history isn't your forte. But it was far from bland.

The guy is a fucking demigod, it's probably like picking up a toothpick to us

I'm not going to take that post seriously. You're just pretending bad things sound good.

>"End of an era"

What a joke.

I suspect that people are more familiar with amateur SFM 3d animation than what actually goes on in a quality professional 3D animation.

Ouch, that is like doing a live action movie without a costume designer.