Will 2D animation die?

Code Horror · Post by **Code Horror** » July 29th, 2007, 3:05 pm

Not to be rude but the only reason why Teacher's Pet didn't do well is because of lack of interest, people and especially kids just got sick of the show.

Post by **ShyViolet** » July 31st, 2007, 1:19 pm

The Colonist comments on The Simpsons Movie and the implications for 2d:

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolo ... e7307dc832

I think they have a couple of their facts mixed up though. Steve Jobs was certainly disparaging towards recent Disney films, (Brother Bear, Treasure Planet) but I don't think he ever actually said that "2d is dead."

Post by **Meg** » July 31st, 2007, 5:04 pm

I wasn't a big fan of the Teacher's Pet movie. Even the kids I was babysitting got bored with it and turned it off a few minutes early.

Post by **Ben** » July 31st, 2007, 5:19 pm

Well, I think it <I>was</I> intended for adults, Meg...

Gawd, I'm gonna be hit hard for <I>that</I> one...

Post by **Toon-Kandy** » September 3rd, 2007, 5:56 pm

It looks like the way things are going, 2D animation is out. (for movies that is) All the big companies like Disney, Pixar, Dream works and others are all going for the 3D CGI look.

I really don't like the way CG looks. It just doesn't feel, shall I say "cartoonish" enough. Plus, all these movies (Cars, Surfs up, Madagascar,) look the same. I saw most of these so called "hit" movies, and I was not impressed. I had to sit all through my English class watching Cars, and I wanted to put a gun to my head, it was so bad!

To me, Disney died when they started doing CG movies. I don't think Disney can ever make a good 3D movie as good as say, The Lion King.

Take the Gorillaz for example, they are a traditional cartoon. (they are a fantastic band too) I'm just amazed how good the animation is when I see one of their music videos. It just looks so artistic and rich. If they ever went 3D, (which sadly they have) they would not have that cartoon feel to them anymore. The guys who do there animation are really talented.

It takes a lot to draw something that looks perfect. I've been drawing my whole life. You might have noticed I'm a 2D animation fan. (and my avatar just happens to be a cartoon character named 2D)

I just hope traditional animated movies are not gone forever.

Now I heard somewhere that Disney might go back to making 2D movies again.

Is that true, or is it all just a cruel joke?

Post by **Daniel** » September 3rd, 2007, 8:06 pm

Welcome, Toon-Kandy!

Nope, what you heard is true. The Princess and the Frog (originally titled The Frog Princess) is tentavily scheduled for 2009, and will be Disney's first 2d theatrical film since Home on the Range. (Not counting Enchanted)

If you want more info, or want to add your two cents, check out this thread. Hope that helped.

And Ben -- Will 2D animation die?

Post by **Ben** » September 4th, 2007, 8:43 am

Welcome TK, and thanks Dan for the thread nudge - merged!

Nope, TK, hand drawn animation is not dead by a long shot. Disney is back in the game with shorts and features, and Europe is way ahead in producing unique films, with the just-finished Nocturna on the way.

BTW, I'm not sure that the Gorillaz - while I love them too - is a great example of 2D animation - I believe that all of their stuff was shaded CGI and made with other computer-assisted production short-cuts. Good as it looks, it's not hand drawn from what I understand.

GeorgeC · Post by **GeorgeC** » September 4th, 2007, 10:56 am

Ben wrote: BTW, I'm not sure that the Gorillaz - while I love them too - is a great example of 2D animation - I believe that all of their stuff was shaded CGI and made with other computer-assisted production short-cuts. Good as it looks, it's not hand drawn from what I understand.

Neither is South Park.

Post by **ShyViolet** » September 6th, 2007, 2:34 am

How to Hook Up Your Home Theater sounds it'll be really cool!

http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... erday.html

And hey, look--Ron Miller!

Post by **Daniel** » September 6th, 2007, 3:42 am

Your confusing me again, Vi.

I should've said this last time, but here's the Goofy thread you couldn't find before.

This is just a suggestion, not forcing you to use it, I'm just trying to help.

Post by **Ben** » September 6th, 2007, 10:06 am

The quote about the narrator sounds somewhat familliar...

From our own Andreas Deja/Mark Henn interview:

AD: A narrator who sounds exactly like the one that we know from the old shorts. I wouldn’t know the name to be honest with you, but he has the same tone, that same dry, matter-of-fact delivery of his lines. You’d swear, “It’s the same guy, but it can’t be! They couldn’t have lifted old dialogue recordings because the material is all new!” He sounds exactly the same.

MH: I think it’s Corey Burton doing the voice. He sounds amazingly like one of the guys used before, because they used several people. If you watch enough of the shorts you’ll hear at least two, maybe three, different narrators depending on the short. The narrator we have is kind of the classic, deadpan delivery, where he takes it very seriously. But, yeah, he sounds great.

Post by **ShyViolet** » September 6th, 2007, 11:42 am

Sorry about that, I did a search but couldn't find the specific thread, so I stuck it onto this one.

Thanks Dan!

And yeah, I guess it was mentioned in the interview. It did sorta sound familiar.

But hey, at least the article had Ron Miller!

Post by **Meg** » September 6th, 2007, 8:38 pm

I don't think Disney can ever make a good 3D movie as good as say, The Lion King.

Sorry, but...I really, really can't stand it when people make this argument.

The quality of Disney movies was pretty low even before they switched to CG - they switched because, like many animation 'fans', they thought good movies were determined by what medium they were animated in. Guess what? They were wrong. Chicken Little was awful, and would have been just as bad had it been 2-D (and vice-versa for Home on the Range.) CGI movies can be made that are just as good and better than The Lion king (which many argue Pixar has already done.) When it comes down to whether or not a movie is good or not, what's most important are story and characters. Yeah yeah, you hear studio guys say that all the time...But it's 100% true.

I love all forms of animation, be it 2D, CGI or stop-motion (which, strangely enough, no one ever complains about, even though it is in many ways similar to CGI). Bad movies are a product of crappy direction, low-quality stories, and no imagination - NOT animation.

Sorry if I came off as a bit harsh, but that's what I believe, and it seems to me that the biggest reason people complain about CGI is that it's not 2D!

Anyway....Welcome to the forums - hope you stick around, it's always interesting to discuss opposing viewpoints.

Post by **Daniel** » September 9th, 2007, 3:17 am

Your wise beyond your years, Meg!

I pretty much agree with everything you said... even with the Chicklit comment. Though, in its defence, I feel it has some good redeeming qualities to it, which save it from being completly awful to me.

Post by **ShyViolet** » September 13th, 2007, 3:29 pm

This is a little bit on the documentary "The Sweatbox". Since we don't really have a specific thread on it, I put it here. Hope it's all right!

Some interesting info on WDFA at the time (now WDAS) but not too much on when or how this might EVER get released.....

http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... ntary.html

On what Meg said above, BTW, I do agree that CGI can go in many places that it hasn't gone yet, (like drama, sci-fi, fairy tales) and that epics can be done in a different form, IMHO...the BEST way to do epic animation is in traditional. (I just can't, no matter how I hard I try, picture POE, Pocahontas or Mulan in CGI)

It doesn't mean that CGI couldn't one day be "good" for an epic, that CGI is bad or inferior, just that some stories are better suited to 2d.

I know that artists/filmmakers say: "It's the story that's everything" and it is, but at the same time, the story does not exist in a vacuum.

I guess it's like looking at classic paintings by Monet or Renoir and saying that instead of oil paints they could have used prints, watercolor, ink or pencils. Not that the paintings would not still have been beautiful in those forms, but they would not have been the same.

The artists made a conscious choice to use oil paints....because they weren't watercolor. IMO the same is true for traditional and CGI.

Bad movies are a product of crappy direction, low-quality stories, and no imagination - NOT animation.

I agree with this 100% but that doesn't mean that there isn't a huge desire on the part of audiences to see traditonal 2d again. Bad stories, good stories--it doesn't matter--people miss 2d. Heck, remember those Miracle Mouse cartoons? Bad as those were, wasn't it sort of pleasant to see traditional animation again? Even all those terrible 2d films from the 80s (Heathcliff the Movie, etc...) had a sort of charm about them that you just don't see in a terrible CGI film like Happily Never After.

(Much as I love DW I would love them 100X more if they went back to doing at least some traditional films. Like Disney, they chose CGI because that's what was making money, as you said, Meg. Now one can argue about whether or not they should have switched ("it's the story that counts") but they both were running a business with employees that depended on them...and CGI was making money. Therefore, they switched to CGI.
Pixar made a conscious choice to use CGI in the early days because of artistic reasons but also because they knew there was a potential market for it in some form--commercials, shorts, perhaps an eventual feature what have you. This is why JL left Disney. Not just because he knew more could be done with computer animation artistically but because he knew that it was potentially profitable.

Now that it's been more than ten years of mostly CGI, the tide is turning again. I personally think all three companies, despite their different agendas and mission statements, would all benefit financially if they
produced at least some new 2d films--with good stories, of course.

and it seems to me that the biggest reason people complain about CGI is that it's not 2D!

Exactly--it isn't. That doesn't mean it's not a worthy art form or beautiful in its own way, but it doesn't have the very unique quality that is 2d animation.

I love all forms of animation, be it 2D, CGI or stop-motion (which, strangely enough, no one ever complains about, even though it is in many ways similar to CGI).

Hmmm.....good point Meg!

That might be because there's much less of it than CGI--or at least much less visible to the public than computer animation.

Will 2D animation die?

Is 2D animation dead?