Will 2D animation die?

General Discussions, Polls, Lists, Video Clips and Links
Post Reply
AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1471
Joined: October 7th, 2007
Location: Unknown

Post by Once Upon A Dream » February 13th, 2008, 1:54 pm

Okay :D,thanks :D.
[img]http://i43.tinypic.com/bfqbtk.jpg[/img]

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 441
Joined: December 21st, 2007

Will 2D Animation Die?

Post by Dusterian » February 27th, 2008, 9:54 pm

I prefer hand-drawn (don't like calling it 2D) animation over CGI anyday! I love lines. I love the lines and paint and ink that is only for hand-drawn animation. I love how they can draw those lines that keep everything in place and make the object 3-D, that's right, traditional animation already has a way of making objects look round and realistically moving. You can see it if you pay attention to it. They can even do shadows. And hand-drawing them and hand-painting them, does, of course, give them the warmer, more feeling, more alive qualities. But I even like traditional's mistakes! Like the colors changing slightly or lines disappearing or something forgotten about or something added that shouldn't be there, etc. And besides, line drawings will always fit more for my favorite movies which are based on fairy tales since fairy tales are associated with storybooks and illustrations. However I won't mind a CGI Rapunzel because that is trying to look like a moving painting and act hand-drawn.

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 19986
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » February 28th, 2008, 9:17 am

I prefer the terms "hand drawn", "traditional" or "classical" animation too, especially "classical" which lends it a certain artistic refinement.

However, I never usually end up using these terms since some don't quite get the difference and unfortunately "2D" has become the widespread nickname, even though there is as much dimension to "2D" as there is to anything else!

I'm also, on the computer artists' defense, not a fan of "CGI", which suggests the images are "generated" by the computer and not created by a human.

Computer rendered, or computer assisted would be better, but again the "buzz" of a catchy, easy to roll off the tongue shortcut has entered the mainstream.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3845
Joined: May 31st, 2005
Location: Maryland

Post by Meg » February 28th, 2008, 4:58 pm

I don't mind the term "2D" as much as I do "3D". I've heard it used on everything from stop-motion to computer animation to things that 'pop' out of the screen - it's getting so dang confusing! ;)

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 19986
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » February 28th, 2008, 6:35 pm

Yeah, and, like, real life! ;)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 441
Joined: December 21st, 2007

Will 2D Animation Die?

Post by Dusterian » February 29th, 2008, 2:09 pm

Oh, then I'll try to remember saying computer assisted, then. I actually prefer the term rendered, though, it sounds neater to say and, well, it is rendered in the computer. If you think about it, even 2D animation could be computer assisted! It's colored in the computerand there's the Great Mouse Detective cogs or The Little Mermaid staircase.

But like I said, I hate the terms 2D and 3D because good classical animation is always prevented from looking flat and is taught to have dimensions while the term 3D used to mean it popped out of the screen. Really, in the end product each medium's only as dimensional as two-sided celluloid allows and our eyes percieve. Sure computer animation can revolve around in it's virtual space, but all that really matters is if we see the characters correctly revolve and show their sides in the movie, which we do for both the hand-drawn and mouse-clicked.

That's another reason why I disliked Enchanted, or rather what they said about Enchanted. They said she want from a 2D character to 3D, outside and inside. Nice way to insult the medium twice, it's incapable of looking and acting as good as a live-action film.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1471
Joined: October 7th, 2007
Location: Unknown

Re: Will 2D Animation Die?

Post by Once Upon A Dream » February 29th, 2008, 2:22 pm

Actually,Dusterian,i don't Giselle became a 3D character at all,she was a 3D person in Andalasia,and those people who said that-they think the Disney Princesses are flat and stupid.
[img]http://i43.tinypic.com/bfqbtk.jpg[/img]

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 19986
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » March 1st, 2008, 2:53 pm

Including the filmmakers, then?

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1471
Joined: October 7th, 2007
Location: Unknown

Post by Once Upon A Dream » March 2nd, 2008, 1:17 am

The filmmakers said that? they shouldn't show the film in this light at all if they did :?.
[img]http://i43.tinypic.com/bfqbtk.jpg[/img]

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1347
Joined: January 23rd, 2006
Location: The Middle of Nowhere

Post by eddievalient » March 4th, 2008, 2:53 pm

If you ever need a definative argument for why we still need traditional animation, all you have to do is look at Cats Don't Dance. It's a fantastic movie that visually would never, ever work if it was totally computer generated, even if the script and everything else was exactly the same. This backs up my assertion that, amazing as some CGI films are, anyone can learn a computer program given enough time. To do it all by hand, though, takes real skill and it's a shame that we just don't see a whole lot of that anymore.
The Official Lugofilm Ltd Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/bartsimpson83

Post Reply