Why doesn't anyone mix live action with traditional animation anymore?

Why doesn't anyone mix live action with traditional animation anymore?
I think there's still a lot of interesting stories that could be told from the existence of toon force in the real world.

Because traditional animation is pretty much dead.

Too expensive to actually animate things in 2d, slapstick is dead, and hollywood isnt interested in telling interesting stories if it means itll cost them money they aren't guaranteed to make quadruple their investment on.

Is it more expensive than CGI?

Son of Zorn

>Why doesn't anyone mix live action with traditional animation anymore?
Roger Rabbit set the bar too high.

I agree, there would be so much potential, but cash grabbing is the media world we live in now

Zemecki's wants to do the sequel with traditional animation. But according to him
>The current corporate Disney culture has no interest in Roger,and they certainly don't like Jessica at all

why should anyone else fund it if you won't fund it??

Besides Son of Zorn, the last show to do it was Out of Jimmy's Head. And that was the worst shit

Is Son of Zorn any good?

What is CGI

It takes skilled artists to draw frames, generally. CG is easier because even pajeet can't fuck up a pre-rendered model and if he does he can just undo the mistake. It's like animating with an autopilot.

Not necessarily. But any changes to script, scene or even the rotation of the camera means you have to redraw everything again, which DOES drive up the cost. Not that reanimating in 3D doesn't, but it takes far less time to rotate a model than it does to completely redraw a 1000+ frame sequence.

The 2D vs 3D thing is more a matter of convenience and safety nets than actual cost or time spent. One could argue it's also a matter of quality control. It's easier to keep track of a comparably small 3D animation team than it is to keep track of hundreds of animators.

Richard Williams is 800 years old and nobody else alive can do it.

The live actors are pretty mediocre. The only real parts that stand out are where Zorn actually kills something or uses an artifact / weapon from his home country.

Because you need an amazing fucking actor to do it.

Bob Hoskins said in an interview he had to train himself to hallucinate - to literally see Roger in front of him.

Watch the other actors eyes: they're not always looking at the cartoon characters they're just looking in that direction.

Bob Hoskins can actually see the damned things.

It's easier to just create a cartoon verson of an actor and do a fully animated peice with the actor just doing the voice.

>Why doesn't anyone mix live action with traditional animation anymore
You speak like mixing live action with traditional animation was common

We tried that. It didn't go well.

I liked it, but was disappointed that the bad guy wasn't actually some nerdy magician Zorn and friends used to beat up for fun.

In 3d you have a model to copy paste and change the pose on evey frame, in 2d every frame must be made from scratch over and over

>in 2d every frame must be made from scratch over and over
2D puppet animation is a thing now. It looks worse than traditional, but since when does Hollywood care about quality?

Nobody knows how to make the mixed mediums work and Hollywood's too creatively bankrupt to imagine up a solid plot to even justify it anyways. The best we'll get are those retarded "[Cartoon characters with brand recognition] get their very own movie... In the REAL world!" flicks, but after those Smurfs movies, Hollywood might have actually learned their lesson with those.

I did like the Rocky and Bullwinkle movie, though. Not because the effects were any good, but it at least was stupidly fun, like the actual show itself was.

Gumball is technically animation and live action. Sussy (sp?) is the voice actress' chin upside down.