Will 2D animation die?
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 228
- Joined: November 26th, 2005
- Location: Birmingham, England
- Contact:
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 9047
- Joined: October 25th, 2004
- Location: Binghamton, NY
Hey, could this be true? 
From CartoonBrew:
(This could be old news, so sorry if it was already reported
)
I'm a little skeptical as to whether they'll actually go through with this (and I mean stick with it even if it doesn't do spectuacular at first)
It certainly seems like will, so I really hope so.
From CartoonBrew:
(This could be old news, so sorry if it was already reported
)LASSETER "DEFINITELY DOING HAND-DRAWN"
Posted by JERRY at 07:05 AM
The last thing you need to read right now is another interview with John Lasseter. However this one, published today in Australia's The Age, has a couple of great closing quotes:
"I don't believe that an animation studio should be an executive-driven studio," he says. "Our goal is really to help bring that studio around to be a director-driven studio like Pixar and help it become about the quality. Quality is about the most important thing to us."
Considering the dominance of computer- generated animation, including the Shrek movies from DreamWorks and the Ice Age movies from 20th Century Fox, it's surprising to learn there's still a place for conventional 2-D movies. "We'll still definitely be doing some hand-drawn animated films at Disney, without question," Lasseter says.
I'm a little skeptical as to whether they'll actually go through with this (and I mean stick with it even if it doesn't do spectuacular at first)
It certainly seems like will, so I really hope so.
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 182
- Joined: May 12th, 2006
- Location: Texas
- Contact:
i agree with everything thats been said so far^ i just think that CGI is a craze that everyone wants to get in to. eventually the craze will die down and movieswill be 2d once more. and im not saying that cgi is bad or anything it has "a certain magic" all on its own.I do hope that disney someday makes both cgi and 2d films. now that would be amazing.
~a-G
~a-G
[img]http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e167/gerardo7412/800px-Ratatouille_Trailer.jpg[/img]
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25321
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 23
- Joined: November 22nd, 2004
- Contact:
Deja-vu discussion. It ssems like no matter what animation forum you visit, this discussion pops up more than once. Well, as many of you were probably not a part of the ooolldd animatedmovies.com forum, I guess I'll kinda revisit my thoughts on the whole 2D vs 3D topic (ie, is 2D dead and 3D taking over).
First, neither form of animation is "better" than the other. I think it's sad that many 2D and 3D artists resent each other (thanks be to Eisner :/ ). Both 2D and 3D animation are needed artforms. Let's face it, 3D has been a huge asset to the animation world, and in some ways has been a leader in a great animation revival. Even hard core 2D fans can't deny this fact. The computer has changed the animation world as we know it today, allowing 2D and 3D animators to create complex camera angles, brilliant colors with rich contrast, complex backgrounds and environments (deep canvas was and still is an amazing program!), and eye-popping effects. Many forget that mixing CG animation with 2D animation is not a novel idea, Oliver and Company being the first film that Disney used both computer generated images with hand drawn images. All of the greatest 'modern-day' 2D (or more accurately 'tradigital'), such as The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast, included some form of CG work.
3D animation, likewise NEEDS 2D animation. Before anyone can be a good animator, traditional or CG, the person MUST be a good artist, requiring strong drawing and (I would add) painting skills. So many animation schools have sadly forgotten this, and unfortunately the animation industry willl suffer from a lack of good artists in the next few years (already we've seen animation atrosities this year... Hoodwinked and Doogal to name a few...). There is more of a personal touch to 2D animation because the animators hand is directly involved in the animation process. If an animator has a solid understanding of traditional animation techniques, their 3D skills will be all the stronger and they will have the ability to apply a more personal feel to their characters. Every genre of animation stems from the principles of traditional animation. So technically, 2D won't ever completely die off.
Secondly, 2D animation and 3D animation tell different types of stories. The way a person shooses to tell a story will determine the way the animator wants to (or more accurately needs to) animate their film. For instance, could you imagine what Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, or even Bambi would look like if they were soley animated via CGI. EWWW! Or how about Toy Story or Monsters Inc traditionally animated... Gross! You get the picture
However, it doesn't matter what category of animation a film falls under, there's really only one thing that matter overall... STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Without a good story, there is no quality film, reguardless of how it's animated. Ideally, a fil should have both a great story with high quuality animation to complement it. The animation should be built as a support for the story and NOT vice-versa. So many well-animated films (and live-action films) focus o only the animation and effects, leaving the storyline and characters forgotten in the dust. The reason many of the more recent 2D films weren't successful was not because they were 'outdated', it was because they lacked the story and characters needed to make a great film (though there were a few 2D animated films that had good stories but were slighted because of poor marketing... that's a whole different story...). Believe it or not, your average joe doesn't know the difference between CG and traditional animation. When I've told people I'm currently attending animation school and hope to focus primarily on traditional animation, they usually have no clue what I'm talking about and I have to explain to them the differences between CG and hand drawn media. To them animation is animation. Unlike an animator, they are going to the theater purely for entertainment. I'll openly admit to everyone here that, though I'm a hard-core traditional animation fan, I refuse to go see a film just because it was traditionally animated. To support a traditionally animated film with a bad storyline will only hurt the 2D industry in the long run as it will encourage studios to continue to make sub-par 2D films. Nor will I go to see a 3D film with a bad story. I hate wasting my money (and it's not because I'm a poor college student lol) I'm a story freak, if you couldn't tell (one of these days I'll have to write on what makes a good story)
So, is 2D animation dead. My answer, no. There have been both successful and unsuccessful traditionally animated and CG animated movies. The success of a film depends on a great story (with high-quality animation to complement it, of course) and an enthusiastic team of animators who stand behind and believe in their film. These two factors alone are what draw the crowds and make a film an exrodinary expierience.
Side Note:
Whew, okay, to those of you who are still reading my wordy post..... ARE YOU CRAZY?! Geeze, and I thought I didn't have a life Anyways....
I've heard many people ask whether or not Lassater will bring back 2D animation. I believe he will, and in full force, knocking the sock off critics and crowds alike. Go ahead and laugh at my assumtions (it wouln't be the first time... after all, I predicted a few years ago (because of rumors I haad heard about adding a 2D studio to their company... so really I can't take full credit for my beliefs) that Lasseter would eventually produce a traditionally animated film and eveybody rolled their eyes at me. Now, it appears as if we are sitting on the threshold of a second "Golden-Age" of animation, but only time will tell.
First, neither form of animation is "better" than the other. I think it's sad that many 2D and 3D artists resent each other (thanks be to Eisner :/ ). Both 2D and 3D animation are needed artforms. Let's face it, 3D has been a huge asset to the animation world, and in some ways has been a leader in a great animation revival. Even hard core 2D fans can't deny this fact. The computer has changed the animation world as we know it today, allowing 2D and 3D animators to create complex camera angles, brilliant colors with rich contrast, complex backgrounds and environments (deep canvas was and still is an amazing program!), and eye-popping effects. Many forget that mixing CG animation with 2D animation is not a novel idea, Oliver and Company being the first film that Disney used both computer generated images with hand drawn images. All of the greatest 'modern-day' 2D (or more accurately 'tradigital'), such as The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast, included some form of CG work.
3D animation, likewise NEEDS 2D animation. Before anyone can be a good animator, traditional or CG, the person MUST be a good artist, requiring strong drawing and (I would add) painting skills. So many animation schools have sadly forgotten this, and unfortunately the animation industry willl suffer from a lack of good artists in the next few years (already we've seen animation atrosities this year... Hoodwinked and Doogal to name a few...). There is more of a personal touch to 2D animation because the animators hand is directly involved in the animation process. If an animator has a solid understanding of traditional animation techniques, their 3D skills will be all the stronger and they will have the ability to apply a more personal feel to their characters. Every genre of animation stems from the principles of traditional animation. So technically, 2D won't ever completely die off.
Secondly, 2D animation and 3D animation tell different types of stories. The way a person shooses to tell a story will determine the way the animator wants to (or more accurately needs to) animate their film. For instance, could you imagine what Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, or even Bambi would look like if they were soley animated via CGI. EWWW! Or how about Toy Story or Monsters Inc traditionally animated... Gross! You get the picture
However, it doesn't matter what category of animation a film falls under, there's really only one thing that matter overall... STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Without a good story, there is no quality film, reguardless of how it's animated. Ideally, a fil should have both a great story with high quuality animation to complement it. The animation should be built as a support for the story and NOT vice-versa. So many well-animated films (and live-action films) focus o only the animation and effects, leaving the storyline and characters forgotten in the dust. The reason many of the more recent 2D films weren't successful was not because they were 'outdated', it was because they lacked the story and characters needed to make a great film (though there were a few 2D animated films that had good stories but were slighted because of poor marketing... that's a whole different story...). Believe it or not, your average joe doesn't know the difference between CG and traditional animation. When I've told people I'm currently attending animation school and hope to focus primarily on traditional animation, they usually have no clue what I'm talking about and I have to explain to them the differences between CG and hand drawn media. To them animation is animation. Unlike an animator, they are going to the theater purely for entertainment. I'll openly admit to everyone here that, though I'm a hard-core traditional animation fan, I refuse to go see a film just because it was traditionally animated. To support a traditionally animated film with a bad storyline will only hurt the 2D industry in the long run as it will encourage studios to continue to make sub-par 2D films. Nor will I go to see a 3D film with a bad story. I hate wasting my money (and it's not because I'm a poor college student lol) I'm a story freak, if you couldn't tell (one of these days I'll have to write on what makes a good story)So, is 2D animation dead. My answer, no. There have been both successful and unsuccessful traditionally animated and CG animated movies. The success of a film depends on a great story (with high-quality animation to complement it, of course) and an enthusiastic team of animators who stand behind and believe in their film. These two factors alone are what draw the crowds and make a film an exrodinary expierience.
Side Note:
Whew, okay, to those of you who are still reading my wordy post..... ARE YOU CRAZY?! Geeze, and I thought I didn't have a life
Anyways....I've heard many people ask whether or not Lassater will bring back 2D animation. I believe he will, and in full force, knocking the sock off critics and crowds alike. Go ahead and laugh at my assumtions (it wouln't be the first time... after all, I predicted a few years ago (because of rumors I haad heard about adding a 2D studio to their company... so really I can't take full credit for my beliefs) that Lasseter would eventually produce a traditionally animated film and eveybody rolled their eyes at me. Now, it appears as if we are sitting on the threshold of a second "Golden-Age" of animation, but only time will tell.
"May traditional animation live long and prosper!"
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 23
- Joined: November 22nd, 2004
- Contact:
Deja-vu discussion. It ssems like no matter what animation forum you visit, this discussion pops up more than once. Well, as many of you were probably not a part of the ooolldd animatedmovies.com forum, I guess I'll kinda revisit my thoughts on the whole 2D vs 3D topic (ie, is 2D dead and 3D taking over).
First, neither form of animation is "better" than the other. I think it's sad that many 2D and 3D artists resent each other (thanks be to Eisner :/ ). Both 2D and 3D animation are needed artforms. Let's face it, 3D has been a huge asset to the animation world, and in some ways has been a leader in a great animation revival. Even hard core 2D fans can't deny this fact. The computer has changed the animation world as we know it today, allowing 2D and 3D animators to create complex camera angles, brilliant colors with rich contrast, complex backgrounds and environments (deep canvas was and still is an amazing program!), and eye-popping effects. Many forget that mixing CG animation with 2D animation is not a novel idea, Oliver and Company being the first film that Disney used both computer generated images with hand drawn images. All of the greatest 'modern-day' 2D (or more accurately 'tradigital'), such as The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast, included some form of CG work.
3D animation, likewise NEEDS 2D animation. Before anyone can be a good animator, traditional or CG, the person MUST be a good artist, requiring strong drawing and (I would add) painting skills. So many animation schools have sadly forgotten this, and unfortunately the animation industry willl suffer from a lack of good artists in the next few years (already we've seen animation atrosities this year... Hoodwinked and Doogal to name a few...). There is more of a personal touch to 2D animation because the animators hand is directly involved in the animation process. If an animator has a solid understanding of traditional animation techniques, their 3D skills will be all the stronger and they will have the ability to apply a more personal feel to their characters. Every genre of animation stems from the principles of traditional animation. So technically, 2D won't ever completely die off.
Secondly, 2D animation and 3D animation tell different types of stories. The way a person shooses to tell a story will determine the way the animator wants to (or more accurately needs to) animate their film. For instance, could you imagine what Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, or even Bambi would look like if they were soley animated via CGI. EWWW! Or how about Toy Story or Monsters Inc traditionally animated... Gross! You get the picture
However, it doesn't matter what category of animation a film falls under, there's really only one thing that matter overall... STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Without a good story, there is no quality film, reguardless of how it's animated. Ideally, a fil should have both a great story with high quuality animation to complement it. The animation should be built as a support for the story and NOT vice-versa. So many well-animated films (and live-action films) focus o only the animation and effects, leaving the storyline and characters forgotten in the dust. The reason many of the more recent 2D films weren't successful was not because they were 'outdated', it was because they lacked the story and characters needed to make a great film (though there were a few 2D animated films that had good stories but were slighted because of poor marketing... that's a whole different story...). Believe it or not, your average joe doesn't know the difference between CG and traditional animation. When I've told people I'm currently attending animation school and hope to focus primarily on traditional animation, they usually have no clue what I'm talking about and I have to explain to them the differences between CG and hand drawn media. To them animation is animation. Unlike an animator, they are going to the theater purely for entertainment. I'll openly admit to everyone here that, though I'm a hard-core traditional animation fan, I refuse to go see a film just because it was traditionally animated. To support a traditionally animated film with a bad storyline will only hurt the 2D industry in the long run as it will encourage studios to continue to make sub-par 2D films. Nor will I go to see a 3D film with a bad story. I hate wasting my money (and it's not because I'm a poor college student lol) I'm a story freak, if you couldn't tell (one of these days I'll have to write on what makes a good story)
So, is 2D animation dead. My answer, no. There have been both successful and unsuccessful traditionally animated and CG animated movies. The success of a film depends on a great story (with high-quality animation to complement it, of course) and an enthusiastic team of animators who stand behind and believe in their film. These two factors alone are what draw the crowds and make a film an exrodinary expierience.
Side Note:
Whew, okay, to those of you who are still reading my wordy post..... ARE YOU CRAZY?! Geeze, and I thought I didn't have a life Anyways....
I've heard many people ask whether or not Lasseter will bring back 2D animation. I believe he will, and in full force, knocking the sock off critics and crowds alike. Go ahead and laugh at my assumtions (it wouln't be the first time... after all, I predicted a few years ago (because of rumors I haad heard about adding a 2D studio to their company... so really I can't take full credit for my beliefs) that Lasseter would eventually produce a traditionally animated film and eveybody rolled their eyes at me. Now, it appears as if we are sitting on the threshold of a second "Golden-Age" of animation, but only time will tell.
PS - forgive any misspellings.... Overworked College student + lack of sleep = :p
First, neither form of animation is "better" than the other. I think it's sad that many 2D and 3D artists resent each other (thanks be to Eisner :/ ). Both 2D and 3D animation are needed artforms. Let's face it, 3D has been a huge asset to the animation world, and in some ways has been a leader in a great animation revival. Even hard core 2D fans can't deny this fact. The computer has changed the animation world as we know it today, allowing 2D and 3D animators to create complex camera angles, brilliant colors with rich contrast, complex backgrounds and environments (deep canvas was and still is an amazing program!), and eye-popping effects. Many forget that mixing CG animation with 2D animation is not a novel idea, Oliver and Company being the first film that Disney used both computer generated images with hand drawn images. All of the greatest 'modern-day' 2D (or more accurately 'tradigital'), such as The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast, included some form of CG work.
3D animation, likewise NEEDS 2D animation. Before anyone can be a good animator, traditional or CG, the person MUST be a good artist, requiring strong drawing and (I would add) painting skills. So many animation schools have sadly forgotten this, and unfortunately the animation industry willl suffer from a lack of good artists in the next few years (already we've seen animation atrosities this year... Hoodwinked and Doogal to name a few...). There is more of a personal touch to 2D animation because the animators hand is directly involved in the animation process. If an animator has a solid understanding of traditional animation techniques, their 3D skills will be all the stronger and they will have the ability to apply a more personal feel to their characters. Every genre of animation stems from the principles of traditional animation. So technically, 2D won't ever completely die off.
Secondly, 2D animation and 3D animation tell different types of stories. The way a person shooses to tell a story will determine the way the animator wants to (or more accurately needs to) animate their film. For instance, could you imagine what Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, or even Bambi would look like if they were soley animated via CGI. EWWW! Or how about Toy Story or Monsters Inc traditionally animated... Gross! You get the picture
However, it doesn't matter what category of animation a film falls under, there's really only one thing that matter overall... STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Without a good story, there is no quality film, reguardless of how it's animated. Ideally, a fil should have both a great story with high quuality animation to complement it. The animation should be built as a support for the story and NOT vice-versa. So many well-animated films (and live-action films) focus o only the animation and effects, leaving the storyline and characters forgotten in the dust. The reason many of the more recent 2D films weren't successful was not because they were 'outdated', it was because they lacked the story and characters needed to make a great film (though there were a few 2D animated films that had good stories but were slighted because of poor marketing... that's a whole different story...). Believe it or not, your average joe doesn't know the difference between CG and traditional animation. When I've told people I'm currently attending animation school and hope to focus primarily on traditional animation, they usually have no clue what I'm talking about and I have to explain to them the differences between CG and hand drawn media. To them animation is animation. Unlike an animator, they are going to the theater purely for entertainment. I'll openly admit to everyone here that, though I'm a hard-core traditional animation fan, I refuse to go see a film just because it was traditionally animated. To support a traditionally animated film with a bad storyline will only hurt the 2D industry in the long run as it will encourage studios to continue to make sub-par 2D films. Nor will I go to see a 3D film with a bad story. I hate wasting my money (and it's not because I'm a poor college student lol) I'm a story freak, if you couldn't tell (one of these days I'll have to write on what makes a good story)So, is 2D animation dead. My answer, no. There have been both successful and unsuccessful traditionally animated and CG animated movies. The success of a film depends on a great story (with high-quality animation to complement it, of course) and an enthusiastic team of animators who stand behind and believe in their film. These two factors alone are what draw the crowds and make a film an exrodinary expierience.
Side Note:
Whew, okay, to those of you who are still reading my wordy post..... ARE YOU CRAZY?! Geeze, and I thought I didn't have a life
Anyways....I've heard many people ask whether or not Lasseter will bring back 2D animation. I believe he will, and in full force, knocking the sock off critics and crowds alike. Go ahead and laugh at my assumtions (it wouln't be the first time... after all, I predicted a few years ago (because of rumors I haad heard about adding a 2D studio to their company... so really I can't take full credit for my beliefs) that Lasseter would eventually produce a traditionally animated film and eveybody rolled their eyes at me. Now, it appears as if we are sitting on the threshold of a second "Golden-Age" of animation, but only time will tell.
PS - forgive any misspellings.... Overworked College student + lack of sleep = :p
"May traditional animation live long and prosper!"
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 657
- Joined: April 4th, 2006
- Location: I'd rather be way out there beyond this hidden town, Barnaby.
- Contact:
You couldn't be more right. Like Brad Bird once said, "Story is king".Chaya wrote:However, it doesn't matter what category of animation a film falls under, there's really only one thing that matter overall... STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
~~=oP
[img]http://i539.photobucket.com/albums/ff356/PixarVixen/sigs/SyndromeOlympictoss.jpg[/img]
[b]I ♥ Tony Rydinger[/b]
[size=75]avatar by Robert Iza[/size]
[b]I ♥ Tony Rydinger[/b]
[size=75]avatar by Robert Iza[/size]
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 182
- Joined: May 12th, 2006
- Location: Texas
- Contact:
wow. very nicely siad. kudos for writing that whole thing. very nicely done for an overworked collage student. (i know my brothers and sometimes they can be a ad bit touchy. you wouldnt want one of those to pop. 
)
)[img]http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e167/gerardo7412/800px-Ratatouille_Trailer.jpg[/img]
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 3845
- Joined: May 31st, 2005
- Location: Maryland
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 23
- Joined: November 22nd, 2004
- Contact:
Classical Education, yet another reason to keep 2D alive
Here's a wondrful editorial I found at AWN.com on the industry of animation education. The author basically stole the words right out of my mouth. Click
here to read this amazing article.
here to read this amazing article.
"May traditional animation live long and prosper!"