Your opinions on 2D vs. 3D animation

[allstitchedup]

I just want to hear what people have to say about Disney disbanding 2D animation and about having all their feature movies done in 3D. Do you agree that animation is the cause of the recent failures with certain movies and productions? Do you really think that 2D animation is dead?

Me? I'm neutral on the whole 2D vs. 3D thing. Sure, the animation needs to impressive, but what about the storyline plots and themes? It seems as if right now the writers and directors aren't giving much effort in trying to produce a movie that could get thumbs ups and nods from the majority of the audience.

[Ciaobelli]

I don't think animation is the cause of failure, lack of an interesting story is the cause of failure. If they spend less time on making cool looking feathers and more time on a great story then we get something.

A good example of this would be the one and only Mickey Mouse. While others moved on to color he remained B/W, but guess what, people loved him just as much even though he lacked color. People, atleast the intelligent ones, connect more with the themes than with the looks. The may only comment on the movie's great action scenes or something(the incredibles) but what really hit the mark was eveything else.

So personally don't care if they will make movies in 2d or 3d of 4d, as long as its got backbone, a story. Obviously great looks and animation help.

Right now Pixar is the only one who is succesfully incorporating those 2 aspects IMHO.

[Wonderlicious]

I think it's a bit of both animation medium and story that's the problem. Disney's animated films of recent are being accused of many by having "bad stories". If you haven't already noticed, the better critically praised movies are doing better at the box office in general than the ones that aren't doing so well, so that supports the fact that the stories aren't as good:

From critics' alround percentages at Rottentomatoes.com:

• *Tarzan (a hit) scored 88%
  *Mulan (a hit) scored 91%
  *Lilo and Stitch (a hit) scored 85%
  
  *Atlantis (a flop) scored 48%
  *Brother Bear (a flop) scored 39%
  *Home on the Range (a flop) scored 50%

Then again, there's an argument for the stories not mattering, just the animation. The 2D box office flop The Emperor's New Groove passed at Rottentomatoes.com with 82% of critics loving it, whilst the 3D box office hit Shark Tale scored a grade of 34%, showing that flashy animation matters more to some than a decent story and critics telling people to try it.

[bluemoon86]

I like both 2D and 3D animation and I dont like that they are letting 3D
take over there's room for both IMHO.

[Jack]

People keep arguing over the reason for traditional animation's downfall - wether its lame stories or wether its just the public having grown tired of "2-D". I think its really a mix of both. True, for the most part, traditionally animated flicks have been the ones with the worst stories as of late. Thats not to say the stories are awful, but they just aren't as inventive as those seen in the "3-D" movies. On the other hand, cell animated movies with very good stories, such as Lilo & Stitch, just can't seem to perform up to the level of computer animated movies. That's why I feel its a mix of both reasons.

As for me personally, I think I will always perfer hand-drawn over computer, though there are pluses and minuses about both. Computer animation allows for awesome detail and wonderful visuals, and in most ways, a lot more freedom than hand-drawn. Hand-drawn is more expensive, and more simplified.

In the end though, I think hand-drawn has more heart and soul than computer animation ever will. Why? Because the images are coming directly from the animator. He can express all he wants right on the page with no middle-man. Computer animation still has heart in it, but most of the time, the pure human emotion is taken away by the technicalities of the computer. In short, I feel more when I see a hand-drawn movie.

"3-D" animation has been improving in that area though. I really think Pixar made leaps and bounds in The Incredibles, in terms of achieving naturally emotional animated characters. And it will probably only get better. However, as I said, I don't think anything will match "2-D" in this area.

[bluemoon86]

Well said Jack!

[Luke]

I agree with pretty much everything said in this thread. I think Disney's recent 'disappointments' have been due to story above animation. <i>Atlantis</i> had some nice charming scope visuals, but a really weak script. <i>Home on the Range</i>: again, some really nice artwork, but a story that was only mildly entertaining.

Critics may have less weight among "family film" attendance than other genres, and there are obviously other factors to consider (promotional budgets, the fact that one was adapted from a cancelled show, release windows, etc.).

But DreamWorks' <i>Shark Tale</i>, a dud with critics, grossed $159 million. <i>Teacher's Pet</i> had reviews that were by and far positive and earned just $6.5 million. Even <i>Jonah: A VeggieTales Movie</i> made about 4x that.

Is it the medium exclusively? No. Like I said there are lots of factors to consider in this example and others. I do think the medium plays a role in how successful a film is with audiences.

What we also must consider is the production window for computer animated films is generally longer than 2-D animated films, I think. Those years give you time to make the story tighter and better. If late changes need to be made, it's probably faster/cheaper/easier to do it in CGI than 2-D.

Ultimately, I think story is of the utmost importance. Pixar's visuals have always wowed me, but it's the stories that make their films great. I'd like to think it's the stories that make them big moneymakers too, at least it's a major factor.

[Jeremy]

I'd always prefer 2D over 3D simply because 2D looks more warm. I really hope that Disney will also cntinue making musical fairytales among new ideas and stories. Because I know many people expect Disney to make fairytales and it's true - Disney knows how to do them. It's pretentious if Disney tries to copy Pixar with new storyideas and movies which are all comical. Disney could make more dark and serious movies every now and then or some other ways different, but I know that future Disney movies will look like as they'd made over Pixar studios. Frankly, I'm tired to Pixar because in a way its movies are all the same, and characters looks the same (round ball eyes) and humour is always the same, I don't like that.

[2099net]

Well, you don't need to simply look at films. You need to look at the whole Trend towards 3D in general.

How many console games these days are 2D? Does 3D give better games? Sometimes 3D is the only way a game can be concieved, but most 3D platform games suffer from camera issues, and while 3D fighters obviously allow for more moves and animations, sometimes there's simply too many, and the pick-up-and-play appeal of a good 2D fighter is missing.

Yet the Gameboy is the only outlet for 2D games today. Even Nintendo won't make a 2D Mario platformer, and Sega won't make a 2D Sonic game - both could be simply awesome if done on a next generation console. Konami's Castlevania: Symphony of the Night was the single best Castlevania title ever made, yet it sold in low numbers and the subsequent PS2 Castlevania title was 3D.

Then there's stuff like titles. How many movie and tv titles involve things flying about in 3D CGI rendered glory? Do we really need them? 2D logos and designs work just as well.

So yes - CGI does have more appeal, because it's something the audience still sees as new and exciting. When Shrek 3 comes out, at least 1/4 column inches about the film will point-out how advanced it is over Shrek 2. Each new CGI film release is exciting. It promises to show the audience something that they haven't seen before, just as Disney animation did in Walt's time, and did briefly during it's 80's revival.

I think eventually the appeal of CGI will wane. It will become too common place and I hope people will start to reject it when it becomes too realistic (but the Polar Express seems to have done alright after a shakey start, so perhaps that's a long way off).