3D is certainly taking over and in all honesty, it hurts my eyes! Especially when now they put 2 hour movies into 3D like Harry Potter, which is a killer on your eyes having to focus that much. Some movies now are available only in 3D which bothers me since it's 3$ more for a ticket, and I just would really prefer 2D since the movie would get it's purpose across with 3D or not to me. The one movie I thought was absolutely amazing with 3D and couldn't be seen any other way was Life of Pi. Cleverly filmed to support 3D effects without overwhelming the eyes, and it was beautiful, made the whole movie seem to come to life.
TheSpiderFromMarsFeatured By OwnerNov 22, 2012Hobbyist Traditional Artist
2D!! 2D!! 2D!!
I think it's so much more heart to a movie that's been handdrawn. It affects me more, and they are way more beautiful than 3D animated movies. I really can't believe why most film makers dismiss the 2D movies these days. I mean, there IS a market for it.
I like how realistic 3d can be and has more depth, but I also love how expressive 2d is and how there is more movement. By the way, there is a new Pixar short that combines the two that is absolutely amazing called Paperman!!!!! Just had to say
hmm im not sure if 3d has taken over, but there is a sort of appeal to 2d, one of my favorite 2d anime of all time is spirited away and i dont think that would have translated as well into 3d. Some awesome example of 3d are toy story of course, FF advent children and shrek etc. i love both i think depends on the film.
I've never liked 3D (Mainly becuase the old glasses hurt my eyes ) So, when I went to see my first 3D film without the red and blue lenses, I had high hopes. I like the idea of 3D, I just don't think it's ued very effectively in films. It doesn't appeal to me because it doesn't improve my viewing experience. I'm a film student and I really appreciate the effort and quality of 2D film. The reactions you experience whilst watching 2D film is all achieved through clever use of cinematography, it's facsinating to look into how much detail there is in 2D film to really involve and captivate the viewer. I had to write an essay on the first 3 minutes of Donnie Darko's cineamatography, and I still had to cut out bits of information. I believe film is at it's bet when 2D because there is a constant focus on attention to detail. I have not yet seen a 3D film with any form of structure or pattern applied to the 3D element. If there has been, however, I'd be happy to be proved wrong I'd love to see 3D used more effectively
I prefer 2D because it feels like more of an art form to me. I mean, have you ever watched Bambi? The backgrounds are all watercolor and they're so beautiful. Or Spirit, about the horse? I love the animation in that movie. The 3D movies feel more like... really high quality video games. Which I mean, I'm sorry, I understand that video games and 3D movies have art teams and all, but that just feels so overdone nowadays.
The unfortunate thing is, the math. Get this right- Lets take a scene where we have a changing background that's watercolor painted. For one second, it needs to be painted 24 times. By thirty seconds, you'll have painted that same thing 720 times and it has to match. It sucks. xD It really does. I've attempted something like that before and I about died.
I've watched Bambi yeah. My boss, as it were, is an ex Disney animator. (from Little Mermaid to Chicken Little) and she's teaching us the right way. Unfortunately, the right way is extensive and requires a lot of time.
It's a difficult thing to accept, the 3D movies. I imagine it's here to stay, but I also do think when people get used to it, 2D will make a comeback. Hopefully xD
I don't mind 3D as it can be done very well. I prefer 2D, which is almost unfortunate as the more adult animated films are becoming harder to find. Disney and Pixar are obviously at the front of 3D animated films, but most 2D seem to be anime. I suppose it's a good thing I enjoy anime, I just wish I could find more animated films that use that gritty, western comic style for characters.
I'm not the biggest Disney fan, though they have made some great movies over the years. I'm very happy with the new Marvel animated films that have been coming out, especially the new Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. Here are a few examples of what I'm talking about.
Yeah, probably not the best animation but I enjoyed it. I didn't grow up watching Disney and the only cartoon I remember watching as a child was Garfield & Friends. I did watch different anime and some Saturday morning cartoons, but I grew up on Westerns and War movies/shows.
I was watching a Pixar documentary and it was talking about how because Pixar's "Toy Story" and "A Bug's Life" sold so well, and Disney's current 2d animations weren't doing so hot, Disney decided to cut its 2d animation department down in order to make 3d films... Which to me is sad, and seems to have been the mindset of more companies than just Disney. I enjoy both styles, but I think its a shame that 2d animation has been abandoned in American film making. The key is to make a GOOD film, but unfortunately many today are 90% sales pitch. I have favorites from both styles, but for me personally hand drawn animation is the most inspiring. Ghibli films and classic disney are my favorites (Frank and Ollie were amazing!).
I imagine they also cut it down due to the overall cost of making a 2d film (from employers to hours). There is also the problem with schools that teach animation not teaching full on 2d animation anymore. I'm a bit shocked that people blame companies so easily, as it is not really their fault what so ever. I nearly came out of college with knowing only 3d animation, but thankfully, I ended my degree while they still had 2d animation classes. Due to this, there is obviously gonna be a lack of 2d animators that they could hire to do movies, because not many are trained to work on something that heavy. It's difficult enough just working on cartoons for a deadline.
Obviously I'm not an insider, going ONLY off a documentary lol. I do personally feel like a lot of animated films, (or films of any kind) being made in America today are designed to sell, instead of being really creative or of quality. There are certainly always exceptions, but I work with kids and I've seen ALOT of animated movies. Some are really fun and creative and others.... well are gimmicky. I saw Pixar animators expressing that they felt like the success of 3d animation had something to do with 2d films not being made anymore, but like I said I'm just a movie WATCHER not an insider. I do understand that these films are expensive to make, and that it takes a good capable team to make them. The question is WHY isn't 2d animation being taught in school anymore? I would assume because there isn't a demand for 2d animators, (but what do I know?) And I would also assume there isn't a demand for 2d animators because companies aren't interested in making 2d films. Obviously if they don't make their money back on them its not worth it, and I'm not neccesarily BLAMING them for that because I don't expect any company to take a loss. All I'm saying that its sad that they don't make as many anymore and IF money is the reason its a shame, not neccesarily someone's fault.
like the success of 3d animation had something to do with 2d films not being made anymore
That is the truth. Anyone that says it's NOT true is either ignorant or does not know how the marketing of animated films works. CGI animated films KILLED 2D because it is [clearly] more popular among people, & so the demand for them is far more than 2D. And thus, ever since Disney & pretty much every other company with the exception of Studio Ghibli (the only damn company keeping 2D alive) saw how successful Pixar's crap-ass animated films were, they began to give up on 2D & began to slowly convert to the medium. I don't really wanna talk about Dreamworks' 2D films (as much as I love that company) because they practically gave up on the medium right when they saw how badly Road to El Dorado flopped (but that was their fault, actually). And anyone that says "No, CGI isn't done for the money or for easy cash" can shut it. Disney's next project I was LONG anticipating for, Frozen (aka The Snow Queen), was going to be done 2D; what happened about a week later? It was later changed to CGI. Why? That's easy, because the CGI will drain more money out of the crowed! CGI isn't done out of love or heart anymore, it's done for the cash-grab.
And while my university IS teaching 2D, the reason it's lacking is, because again, of CGI. The university actually recommends people who are animators or game artists to work in the CGI or game animation department, because that medium, especially the game department, will easily get them a job as an animator for whatever company. Why? Because like I said, CGI animation is the only shit any damn company wants to work with no a days. I truly felt horrible for the hand-drawn animators that were laid off from Walt Disney pictures because of that CGI animation shit.
"no, cgi isn't done for the money or easy cash can shut it" then please, leave. Your biased opinion towards my line of work is insulting and almost uneducated, as it's obvious you haven't worked for a 3d animation company and possibly a 2d animation company. Both seek money, because money keeps them functioning. I've worked for heartless 2d companies and 3d companies and vice versa on their opinion of how important money is to them.
So please, just don't bother. Again, your profile clearly states your likes and dislikes. I don't see the need to violently push it onto others.
I have the high hopes of working for them (2D that is), & I'm not basing my opinion off being biased. I've already worked on both mediums from my high school years for both my normal class hours & even stood after school to learn more about them, & then now in University I'm learning about the language of the animation medium (not pleasantly looking forward to learning about Pixar). I already know how both mediums work & how much time & effort they take to work, but CGI never appealed to me & hated every agonizing minute of having use over 2 hours worth of time to create something & then another countless amount of hours just to make it do one little thing; then comes the cameras, backgrounds, lighting, textures, rendering, etc.
And I'd like to know how is my opinion biased exactly? If everything else I said pretty much true (Frozen being done in CGI for the cash rather than 2D, CGI animation only being done by frankly every animation company [with the exception of Studio Ghibli]). Yes, I KNOW companies do need to care about money, because obviously how else are they going to get more to make more movies? But that was NOT what I meant by "easy cash grab". Again, cash grab meaning that 3D is only being done to grab more money much easier because people respond to them much faster than they do 2D nowadays (I actually though I was dreaming when i read Fox wanted to make a hand-drawn Charlie Brown movie [don't really expect it to be a budget success unless they green-light it well.]) And my apologies, but I wouldn't be violently harsh towards CGI if it didn't kill 2D animation.
I wonder if this "sell" idea is something an older generation assumes? Because I've never ever been in a studio where someone is like, "What would make a lot of money?". They obviously have to keep the business up, but hundreds have to enjoy and love the idea they're working on. Pixar is really creative, every story has a completely different range of characters. I admit, I was a bit done with princesses. @_@ I loved that phase where it suddenly became about adventure (Treasure Planet, Iron Giant). Those movies both use 3D elements and succeed amazingly. I wish it was just a blend like that.
We can wish.
I don't understand why it's not being taught. All animators (2d and 3d) have to learn the principles and laws of physics, which takes about two years. Then somehow my third year was almost overcome by 3d out of nowhere. It was a bit upsetting. I got a degree in animation and took classes on how to texture a 3d object. I learned a lot yes, but I could have been doing something else instead.
2d Will always be a demand, but the demand is for 'limited' animation, which is used in television. The kind that you are probably missing, is the kind not many can suffer through. Many people destroyed themselves making those films everyone loved. Television is a bit more bearable, thankfully.
The reason they stopped making 2D movies, in my different perspective, is because before 3D came in, Disney kept having busts when it came to films. There wasn't many buying or seeing them (either due to not liking or just downloading) so they had to do something new. Toy Story was an obvious hit, and was able to survive on it's success. I'm not entirely sure, as I only know a couple people in Dreamworks, who suffered that fate when Road to Eldorado didn't do well. It only made 95 mil. Shrek made 400 mil. That's bound to sway a company that's struggling on it's feet.
I think possibly we're saying the same thing in different ways? I'm saying its sad if money/availability is holding film makers back from making movies with 2d animation, not that its a conspiracy lol. I love Pixar films. Studio Ghibli is probably my favorite though, and a good example of making hand drawn animation work. I'm only 22 by the way. I don't think anyone working in a studio that makes movies sets out to create solely for the purposes of money. But the people MAKING the movie and the people DISTRIBUTING the movie are sometimes two different groups.
I think 3D only dominates mainstream animation. Whenever I've gone to a film festival, I find 2D is the dominant style still. In fact I hardly see 3D films at these, though that may just be the sessions I go to (and I'm Aussie and we're always behind everyone in technology). May also be it's cheaper and easier to animate a 2D film if you're an independent. Also 2D's just more fun to do and given the choice I'll tend to make a 2D film then a 3D.
As for my personal preference... I like both but I do prefer to watch 2D. I find the animation has far more life in it then 3D where even Pixar just looks like characters moving from one position to another. In particular, I'm not fond of how mouths look still in 3D.
I find it a bit telling with audiences that people are really only looking at the textures and environments in these films, which are often very impressive, but, yeah... I like character and acting. Though I do think Disney has been doing some really impressive work with films like Tangled and Paperman in being able to achieve the kind of dynamics you can get in a 2D film.
The big thing I like 2D for though, is the artistic quality to it. Something like 'Pink Elephants' or the majority of Fantasia segments or things like that you really can't do well in a 3D film, and I really love watching these abstract scenes.
Comes down to what you want the story to do, though. If you want something atmospheric and detailed, 3D. If you want something more arty, 2D. They're both good. And sorry for the text wall.
I like text walls if it's reasonable and understandable
I agree, I do think that's because no one cares to purchase and learn 3d programs (as it is quite the task, let me tell you). I have had my share of making both. 3D programs are intimidating at first, but one's gotta admit, to see what you've always known as a 2d character and see it physically in 3D, is pretty cool! I'm on the same boat though, I prefer making 2d shorts.
Mouths are one of the most difficult things in my opinion on the human body to do in 3d due to edge loops and having little area to work with it. They've only since Kung Fu Panda started using blend shapes (having multiple models with alternate faces kind of like stop motion) to get better mouths.
There's plenty of free 2d animation programs (pencil for pc plz) and no free 3D programs (?). Unfortunately, to do something traditionally 2d takes too long and a lot of paper (I have.. so many boxes). I do see you draw, ever thought of animating any of it?
I actually am an animator so yeah, I fully appreciate the work involved in a 3D film and yes, those packages are daunting to learn. And EXPENSIVE!!!! It CAN be pretty cool to see a 2D character in 3D, but I'd say that depends on the character. Mickey Mouse, for instance, should stay a 2D character I feel.
I have boxes of drawings too! I'm looking at learning some of the other 2D programs (I know Photoshop, which is annoying to animate in, and Flash. Which I also don't like. Mostly I tend to do cut out in After Effects). My mate just introduced me to Pencil the other day actually.
I love both, 3D growing a bit at a time. Most of my heart still belongs to 2D animation though.
Anyhow, I don't feel that "3D is everywhere" since I'm not that focused on Western animation alone but also Japanese ones. (I'm quite fond of anime.) All in all it looks like approximately 50:50 to me, internationally spoken. And even if there really is more 3D than 2D overall, I don't see that as a reason to hate on it like some do. Maybe that's also due to my education, media technology and design where we get to see many different examples of both types. So I also think that 3D has a lot of abstraction and stylisation possibilities too.
In the future I want to work on projects in both directions as much as possible. Doing only one would be kinda incomplete for me...
I think the world is more infatuated with 3D in movies because it looks so amazing and is next level but 2D will always capture attention if it is done right. And television will always have a place for 2d animation. I still think it all depends on what your doing with it. 3D is just so prominent in the peoples animation hearts because that is all that is coming out in the movie world, not many people like to take risks in less popular genres or new ideas.