DVDizzy Forum

Kyle wrote:
You have to think more with your left brain when considering what is technically possible versus your emotional response towards a certain medium. Technically speaking 3D is can do more. Part of what makes 2D more appealing to many is how is simplifies. Its limitations become become a strength. But hand drawn can't animate millions of blades of grass or strands of hair, keep track of complex lighting and physics, duplicate objects/characters or create patterns with ease at any angle. Those are hurdles that just can't be jumped. It can only suggest these things. You could argue a lot of this isn't needed or even appealing, but there are a lot of technical things that make 3d more flexible.

To me, this is a "forest for the trees" situation. Maybe I'm just wondering what the point of seeing every individual blade of grass is...? Btw, hand-drawn animation most certainly can do that (see the animation of rain in Bambi or the underwater scenes in Pinocchio, for instance), but mostly they don't bother because...why would they again? When they have went the extra mile to go in detail to every leaf of every tree, for instance (Sleeping Beauty), the result is more beautiful than anything in a 3D film--which merely comes off as a plastic imitation of real life (such as the home of the ants in A Bug's Life). 3D works well with things that are sleek or mechanical, but to me, even though they've improved and will keep improving, they don't particularly capture anything organic well. Personally, I don't really see the point of exact realism in an animation form because if that was the point, why not just make live-action films or stop-motion?

Kyle wrote:You have to think more with your left brain when considering what is technically possible versus your emotional response towards a certain medium. Technically speaking 3D is can do more. Part of what makes 2D more appealing to many is how is simplifies. Its limitations become become a strength. But hand drawn can't animate millions of blades of grass or strands of hair, keep track of complex lighting and physics, duplicate objects/characters or create patterns with ease at any angle. Those are hurdles that just can't be jumped. It can only suggest these things. You could argue a lot of this isn't needed or even appealing, but there are a lot of technical things that make 3d more flexible.

+1 Great points!

And I think both have their place. Sometimes the endless details are appealing and even mesmerizing. At other times, the age-old saying applies: "Less is more."

One thing I like about hand-drawn is its malleability. CGI kind of gets bound to the style and sense of physicis that it has created within its own universe. It can't really break its own rules in the way that hand-drawn can. Take, for example, the sequence in Colors of the Wind where she looks like a chalk drawing in the wind and slowly materializes into her "flesh-and-blood" self. I don't think I've really seen anything like that in CGI yet.

Still, I don't really buy the argument that CGI is less expressive or fluid than hand-drawn. If anything, it is generally more fluid, because the medium lends itself to being more fluid if it is done right. And honestly, I think we've just about reached the point where CGI films will not look dated after years passing. Take Ratatouille. That film is already 7 years old. I think Pixar has definitely made a lot of advancements since then, yet, that film still looks gorgeous. And I still think it will look gorgeous another 7 years later.

Disney's Divinity wrote:To me, this is a "forest for the trees" situation. Maybe I'm just wondering what the point of seeing every individual blade of grass is...? Btw, hand-drawn animation most certainly can do that (see the animation of rain in Bambi or the underwater scenes in Pinocchio, for instance), but mostly they don't bother because...why would they again? When they have went the extra mile to go in detail to every leaf of every tree, for instance (Sleeping Beauty), the result is more beautiful than anything in a 3D film--which merely comes off as a plastic imitation of real life (such as the home of the ants in A Bug's Life). 3D works well with things that are sleek or mechanical, but to me, even though they've improved and will keep improving, they don't particularly capture anything organic well. Personally, I don't really see the point of exact realism in an animation form because if that was the point, why not just make live-action films or stop-motion?

I personally think CGI (in its current state) captures organic things very well. Sure, A Bug's Life looks a bit plastic, archaic even. It undeniably has a dated look to it, as do most, if not all, CGI films from the medium's infancy. Yet, at some point, I think CGI has gotten past that (as I've already stated). The advancements the medium has made in the last decade are astounding.

And I think it's clear most animated features aren't striving for "exact realism." (I also wouldn't see the point of exact realism in animation.) Most of the stories that are told in the medium would be near impossible to replicate in live-action. Yet, I can see where you're coming from... a lot of CGI flicks until now have maintained a somewhat realistic sense of physics and more restrained movements that are reminiscent of reality. Sometimes the set-designs are more "realistic" than they need to be.

But I think we are increasingly moving away from this. Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs was mentioned, and that is a great example of a CGI film that really embraces the medium of animation (perhaps even moreso than a lot of hand-drawn features). The movements and expressions are wacky and cartoony, the designs are simple yet appealing, and the CGI itself does not have the "plastic" look of older CGI films. And that was a well-written, well-directed film to boot. It's perhaps my favorite animated film of 2009. (I definitely think it bests both PATF and Up.)

Another argument I see from detractors in regards to CGI films is that they "all look the same." But I think that animators and studios are finally starting to show us that many different styles are achievable in CGI. Personally, I think The Incredibles holds up a lot better than a lot of the animated CGI flicks from around that time because it was highly stylized. The designs had character to them... They were cartoony and didn't strive for any sense of hyper-realism. While there are still some generic and boring-looking CGI films coming out today, I think in many ways the genre is branching out and achieving unique looks. I mean look at Blue Sky's Peanuts teaser, then watch the trailers (or full films) for The LEGO Movie, Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs, Jack and the Cuckoo Clock Heart, Oblivion Island, and The Painting and tell me that they all look the same.

I won't argue that the styles in CGI films are as diverse as hand-drawn films. I don't think that's true, and we haven't reached that point yet. Perhaps it won't ever quite reach that sort of diversity. However, to say that the diversity is not there shows that people really aren't looking too far. (People could have made the same argument about hand-drawn in the 90s if all they were looking at were Disney and Don Bluth flicks.)

ce1ticmoon wrote:
Still, I don't really buy the argument that CGI is less expressive or fluid than hand-drawn. If anything, it is generally more fluid, because the medium lends itself to being more fluid if it is done right. And honestly, I think we've just about reached the point where CGI films will not look dated after years passing. Take Ratatouille. That film is already 7 years old. I think Pixar has definitely made a lot of advancements since then, yet, that film still looks gorgeous. And I still think it will look gorgeous another 7 years later.

In 50 years, I'm sure none of these films will stand the test of time animation-wise. Toy Story already looks pretty rough to me; the only reason it's not unbearable is because the characters themselves are plastic.

As far as fluid/expressiveness in 3D being equal to 2D, I don't buy the argument that it is. Even actual fluid in 3D films doesn't come across very fluid. And it's definitely not on the same level as hand-drawn in that department. Could you imagine Elsa, Anna, or Rapunzel having such flat-out beautiful expressions as Ariel does in "Part of That World," its reprise, or when she's just found Eric is going to marry Vanessa? The face in all three, but just Ariel's body movements in the first are amazing. And this is from the '90s--when the peak animation-wise for 2D was back in the '40s-'50s. Although 3D is more expressive than it was a decade ago, I seriously doubt they will ever reach that level.

I actually prefer 3D films to be stylized. I find the animation doesn't look off as much--for me personally--when they are.

Disney's Divinity wrote:If Frozen wouldn't be considered a good enough story to "revive" hand-drawn animation, then you must admit that argument is just drawing at straws. They have no interest in reviving hand-drawn animation, and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the story suits the medium or the story just isn't "good enough," because we've already had several stories that both suited the medium and were good enough. It's so exhausting to see these same excuses paraded around as more than what they are. And, no, I don't see the value in 3D trying to "emulate" hand-drawn or how that's supposed to keep hand-drawn animation "alive."

Couldn't agree more.

Sotiris wrote:

Disney's Divinity wrote:If Frozen wouldn't be considered a good enough story to "revive" hand-drawn animation, then you must admit that argument is just drawing at straws. They have no interest in reviving hand-drawn animation, and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the story suits the medium or the story just isn't "good enough," because we've already had several stories that both suited the medium and were good enough. It's so exhausting to see these same excuses paraded around as more than what they are. And, no, I don't see the value in 3D trying to "emulate" hand-drawn or how that's supposed to keep hand-drawn animation "alive."

Couldn't agree more.

Sotiris, mind if I ask you a question? I know you are a research person, but be honest to yourself. Do you think in the future that Disney will make a comeback with hand drawn animation?

Disney's Divinity wrote:In 50 years, I'm sure none of these films will stand the test of time animation-wise. Toy Story already looks pretty rough to me; the only reason it's not unbearable is because the characters themselves are plastic.

As far as fluid/expressiveness in 3D being equal to 2D, I don't buy the argument that it is. Even actual fluid in 3D films doesn't come across very fluid. And it's definitely not on the same level as hand-drawn in that department. Could you imagine Elsa, Anna, or Rapunzel having such flat-out beautiful expressions as Ariel does in "Part of That World," its reprise, or when she's just found Eric is going to marry Vanessa? The face in all three, but just Ariel's body movements in the first are amazing. And this is from the '90s--when the peak animation-wise for 2D was back in the '40s-'50s. Although 3D is more expressive than it was a decade ago, I seriously doubt they will ever reach that level.

I actually prefer 3D films to be stylized. I find the animation doesn't look off as much--for me personally--when they are.

I think Disney is still working that out. I agree that Ariel looks more beautiful in motion compared to Anna, Elsa, and Rapunzel. They are still working with translating those house-style Disney character designs into CGI.

But I can't say that I think Ariel's face is more expressive than say, Woody's in Toy Story 3. He must have hundreds of expressions that display the varying emotions he experiences throughout the film. Now, in terms of his body movements, yes, he is much more restrained than Ariel or other characters in a lot hand-drawn films. But I think that's due to the more "realistic" sense of physics that are part of that universe. But again, if you look at something like Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, I don't think you can say that The Little Mermaid is more expressive in terms of bodily movement or facial expressions. Or look at Hotel Transylvania. Personally, I thought it was a mediocre film, but the animation was amazing--the movements, the expressions--it is far and away more expressive than even a lot of hand-drawn features.

As for CGI films standing the test of time, I also think Toy Story and the other earlier films look quite dated. I'd go further than saying they "already look pretty rough." They look rough, period, especially compared to the features today. But I think it's important to keep in mind that the advancements that they are making in CGI now, while impressive, are much smaller than the advancements that they were making 10 - 15 years ago. Back then, the advancements that they were making were in HUGE strides. Each new Pixar film looked infinitely better than the last. Today, each new Pixar film looks marginally better than the last, at best. In all honesty, I think the advancements are virtually indistinguishable.

I sincerely think they've nearly perfected the craft, and that they won't look as dated as you imply. So I think now is the time that they can start working on achieving more styles. And working on "breaking the rules" the way that hand-drawn can (as I mentioned in an earlier post). I guess in that respect, you could actually argue that hand-drawn is more expressive, so I will give you that.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

Fflewdur wrote:The thing is that CG animation can do everything traditional animation could (technically, anyway), and more

I don't think I could disagree with this statement more. Besides the fact that I find hand-drawn more expressive and fluid than 3D in nearly all cases, the best thing about 2D is that in 10 years time a 2D film won't look dated and unimpressive like a 3D film does/will.

Also, Frozen has not performed nearly as well as you/others think it has. Aladdin, Snow White, B&tB, and Sleeping Beauty among others are all still far ahead of Frozen when adjusted for inflation--and all these films are 2D. Of course, if you want to compare base numbers without taking into account inflation you could say Frozen is the best-selling animated film of all time, but then your argument loses all reason.

Your arguments about TP&TF are also flawed when you consider 1) That Disney was never behind that film the way they have been their 3D films the past decade because they had been looking for a reason to go exclusively 3D and John Lasseter is the only reason they bothered going back to hand-drawn animation for one blip in the radar (Yes, I know that's something positive with John Lasseter's name in the same sentence, how unlike me), and 2) Even TLM looks pitiful when compared to TLK--the point being that the beginning of a successful string of films has to start at the bottom. Especially considering Disney was even farther down the hole after the 2000's than they were when TLM came along.

So...

So there’s no factual basis to assert Frozen could have performed *nearly* as well as a 2D feature unless the rationale is just “because ‘Let it Go!’”

I would have to say that while your argument technically is "factual," they are skewed facts that conveniently ignore many other facts.

Adjusting for inflation doesn’t begin to account for all the rest of the variables in the equation.

I already made the point that TLK could have earned something close to double Frozen’s take, adjusting for ticket prices.

But how do you adjust for the exponentially increased competition for one’s entertainment dollars outside moviegoing since Aladdin or The Little Mermaid? Or the increased competition *within* the moviegoing marketplace—how many more studios are regularly releasing family-friendly animated features to theaters? How many more features are hitting theaters each year? What about drastically reduced theatrical runs due to the pressure to bring releases to the home media market, or the changes in theatrical consumption brought about by the vast proliferation of home media? And besides the competition for the entertainment budget, what about pressure on the average household’s *total* budget, period? For most folks the economy is in worse shape—unemployment is higher, wages and purchasing power have not risen commensurate with prices, and a family night at the movies marks a more significant investment proportionate to income today than during the Renaissance. How do you quantitatively balance all of those factors at play, all of which tip the scales in one direction or another? You don’t. You settle for the fact there are no valid *absolute* comparisons once you’re operating at a far enough remove in time. The fact is that Frozen’s success is a remarkable accomplishment, the like of which a Disney animated film hasn’t seen in 20 years.

I don’t know what it means that “Disney was never behind” TPatF “the way they have been their 3D films of the past decade.” Speaking anecdotally, I saw no less marketing for Frog than for Bolt or Robinsons or Wreck-it Ralph—in fact, because of the (ill-founded) racial controversy and the pro-active steps the studio took to address it, Frog had more of a media presence than many films of the past decade (and there’s no way to quantify the effects of those phenomena, either). The evidence suggests that the market just isn’t as interested in 2D animation—in part because the market has shaped itself to provide 2D less support, yes, but there’s no way to quantify that either. It’s a disappointing state of affairs, but it is what it is.

Fflewduur wrote:
But how do you adjust for the exponentially increased competition for one’s entertainment dollars outside moviegoing since Aladdin or The Little Mermaid? Or the increased competition *within* the moviegoing marketplace—how many more studios are regularly releasing family-friendly animated features to theaters? How many more features are hitting theaters each year? What about drastically reduced theatrical runs due to the pressure to bring releases to the home media market, or the changes in theatrical consumption brought about by the vast proliferation of home media? And besides the competition for the entertainment budget, what about pressure on the average household’s *total* budget, period? For most folks the economy is in worse shape—unemployment is higher, wages and purchasing power have not risen commensurate with prices, and a family night at the movies marks a more significant investment proportionate to income today than during the Renaissance. How do you quantitatively balance all of those factors at play, all of which tip the scales in one direction or another? You don’t. You settle for the fact there are no valid *absolute* comparisons once you’re operating at a far enough remove in time. The fact is that Frozen’s success is a remarkable accomplishment, the like of which a Disney animated film hasn’t seen in 20 years.

And I would agree with you that there are many factors that would tip the scale one way or another. But all those reasons are why I find the statement that "Frozen has made more money than any other Disney feature ever (without adjusting for inflation), so therefore 3D is more popular than 2D ever was" ridiculous. Frozen is still behind many of Disney's best hand-drawn features, and Tangled, MTR, WIR, Bolt, and Chicken Little are somewhere from the middle to down in the drecks.

See this post, which I've kept updated (I don't think Frozen's going to move anymore spaces--it's really just in theaters to cross the $400,000,000 bar in the US, I think).

Disney's Divinity wrote:And I would agree with you that there are many factors that would tip the scale one way or another. But all those reasons are why I find the statement that "Frozen has made more money than any other Disney feature ever (without adjusting for inflation), so therefore 3D is more popular" ridiculous.

And I'd not be the one to make that particular statement.

But CG is still more popular *at this time* (at least in the US), if for no other reason than that there's no basis for comparison because wide-release 2D features have begun to share a common characteristic with the passenger pigeon and the dodo bird. It's been a decade since Home on the Range. Maybe there's been a wide-release 2D feature from a US studio in that time besides TPatF; if so, I've missed it. So that's one. Ghibli and auteurs like Chomet work in 2D, but for ten years 2D has been almost entirely the domain of niche audiences and direct-to-home releases; you can't even compare box office receipts because 2D's given nothing suitable as a basis for comparison. Is 2D obsolete or inferior? No. Is it artistically viable? Sure. Bt the definition of "popular" is "prevalent among the general public," by which there's simply no contest--and debating how we reached this point doesn't affect the outcome in the least.

Edit: your research is to be commended.

Fflewduur wrote: Maybe there's been a wide-release 2D feature from a US studio in that time besides TPatF; if so, I've missed it.

I was going to say "The Simpsons Movie", but half the animation was outsourced to South Korea (if that's what "from a US studio" implies).

But you must give credit where it's due: he didn't want the show's image to be altered simply because the popular consensus was CG hungry. Here's what Matt Groening said in 2007:

Speaking at a press launch in central London, he said The Simpsons Movie was "a tribute to the art of hand-drawn animation, which is basically disappearing".

"All the animated movies these days are computer generated," he said, adding that his film had been created in "the old-fashioned, clumsy, 'erase it if you don't do it right' way".

"It's not a CGI movie with a thousand perfect penguins dancing in unison," he continued - a reference to Happy Feet, the winner of this year's Oscar for best animated feature.

Disney's Divinity wrote:And I would agree with you that there are many factors that would tip the scale one way or another. But all those reasons are why I find the statement that "Frozen has made more money than any other Disney feature ever (without adjusting for inflation), so therefore 3D is more popular than 2D ever was" ridiculous. Frozen is still behind many of Disney's best hand-drawn features, and Tangled, MTR, WIR, Bolt, and Chicken Little are somewhere from the middle to down in the drecks.

See this post, which I've kept updated (I don't think Frozen's going to move anymore spaces--it's really just in theaters to cross the $400,000,000 bar in the US, I think).

According to your list, Frozen is behind Aladdin and The Lion King, which are the only 2D films that sit ahead of Frozen that are remotely viable comparisons of performance. You just can't compare it to films like Snow White or 101 Dalmatians, which are from an entirely different era. Fact is that Frozen sits among the company of Aladdin, The Lion King, Toy Story 3, Shrek 2, and Finding Nemo as some of the most popular animated films of the modern era.

Fflewduur wrote:And I'd not be the one to make that particular statement.

But CG is still more popular *at this time* (at least in the US), if for no other reason than that there's no basis for comparison because wide-release 2D features have begun to share a common characteristic with the passenger pigeon and the dodo bird. It's been a decade since Home on the Range. Maybe there's been a wide-release 2D feature from a US studio in that time besides TPatF; if so, I've missed it. So that's one. Ghibli and auteurs like Chomet work in 2D, but for ten years 2D has been almost entirely the domain of niche audiences and direct-to-home releases; you can't even compare box office receipts because 2D's given nothing suitable as a basis for comparison. Is 2D obsolete or inferior? No. Is it artistically viable? Sure. Bt the definition of "popular" is "prevalent among the general public," by which there's simply no contest--and debating how we reached this point doesn't affect the outcome in the least.

Edit: your research is to be commended.

I think Disney Divinity took issue because you concluded that "there’s no factual basis to assert Frozen could have performed *nearly* as well as a 2D feature," but you didn't address the reverse. I agree with your conclusion, but I think the reverse is also true. There is no factual basis to really assert that Frozen couldn't have performed as well as a 2D feature either.

And what you're getting at in this post is the crux of it. There just isn't anything to base the claim on, in either direction. There have only been 3 examples (that I can think of) of mainstream 2D animated features released by US studios since Disney and Dreamworks stopped producing them in 2003/2004. There's The Simpsons Movie (regardless of any outsourcing, I consider it a US feature), The Princess and the Frog, and Winnie the Pooh. That's it. The Simpsons Movie was successful, but was based on a popular TV property aimed primarily at adults, and thus can't really tell us anything. Winnie The Pooh can't tell us much either, since it is part of an established brand that has been diluted by Disney beyond repair, as the average person basically associates it with toddlers and babies. The Princess and the Frog is the only one that can tell us anything. It's box office performance was "disappointing," but that could be attributed to a number of factors, including an alienating title, a poor release date, or having a primarily black cast (yes, I seriously think this is a huge contributing factor). Yet, it's performance isn't that much worse than a lot of CGI flicks of today: Rise of the Guardians, Epic, Turbo, Cloudy 2, Mr. Peabody and Sherman... None of these have performed much better than PATF, if at all.

So we only have PATF to go off of. Yet, it's only one film. It's hardly enough to tell us anything as to whether or not audiences are interested in 2D animation today. It's true that 2D generally wasn't doing so hot when it got all but shut down in 2003/2004. There were some huge hits on the CGI front, and some monumental failures on the 2D side. Despite the fact that the middle-ground films were posting box office returns in the same range, I can see how CGI could have been perceived as the best viable course for the future at that time, from a business standpoint. But now that we have CGI films from the big guns virtually bombing left and right, perhaps now is the time to test the waters with 2D again?

regarding CGI doing facial expression & movements compared to 2d, i think theyve vastly improved since the early days. I think some studios are better at it than others too. I loved HHTYD but there are lots of moments where I still get the "video game people" feel wth the characters. But clearly Disney is getting better at blurring the lne.

no my biggest beef with CGI is the needless photorealism in everything. I dont need to see every hair, skin pore or every weave in a piece of fabric. And the backgrounds that look like photographs with oversaurated coloring. I think it just looks either intrusive or plain boring.

thats why I do like the idea of a hybrid technique. I did like the Tin Soldier sequence in Fantasia 2000 which I think was kinda a similar hybrid technique to Paperman, in that it was cgi models but they were given a flatter look of 2d with simple coloring & subtler shading effects. The backgrounds were especially good. The stiff cgi movement of the characters are the weakest part but thats understandable considering when it was made & nowadays they are much better at doing it.

unprincess wrote:regarding CGI doing facial expression & movements compared to 2d, i think theyve vastly improved since the early days. I think some studios are better at it than others too. I loved HHTYD but there are lots of moments where I still get the "video game people" feel wth the characters. But clearly Disney is getting better at blurring the lne.

I love HTTYD too, but it was clearly a step behind other animated films from the same year in the visual department, even compared to Dreamworks' other films. Judging from the trailers, HTTYD2 seems to be a vast improvement and amongst the top films in terms of visuals.

With the huge leaps forward Tangled made in human character animation, HTTYD looked years apart from Tangled.

Either way, that was one hell of a year for animation.

PatrickvD wrote:With the huge leaps forward Tangled made in human character animation, HTTYD looked years apart from Tangled.

Either way, that was one hell of a year for animation.

Agreed on both counts.

Honestly, in terms of character animation, I'd say Tangled looks better than Frozen.

MeerkatKombat wrote:

unprincess wrote:why hasnt the same thing happened with cgi flms by now with the oversaturation of horrible cgi movies that have been released to theaters since the 2000's?

is it just that cgi is so cool & shiny looking to people that you can do anything, even the worst dreck, & people will still flock to it? whereas with 2d audiences tastes were much more discerning. No wonder the suits love cgi.

There are so many mediocre to crappy cgi films out there. You can't escape them at the Cinema.
Personally, the cgi market seems more flooded than 2D ever was.
I do like some cgi films but they have to work harder for my affection. I still believe 2D will make a comeback. People will get fed up of constant cgi eventually. Surely.

...But I can't whine about the lack of 2D animation. It won't push Disney to bring it back faster. We have to wait it out. Absolutely no point in anyone here losing sleep and getting seriously anxious over it. Yay for Disney back collection (and a couple of Don Bluths).
At the end of the day, Disney is a business. They want to make money and they will do whatever they think is the quickest was to do that and if cgi will make them money, then that's the logical thing to do. It isn't a case of evil executives all secretly hating 2D animation and loving the enjoyment that comes from disappointing 2D fans.

I believe that 2D is Disney's heart and they should eventually go back and honour it.

Regarding the "CGI is shiny" thing, I heard Brad Bird once in a discussion saying that CGI to hand drawn is like MIDI to using instruments, you can be pretty crappy with your skills and still come out with a decent result. In terms of animation it means that the bodies are well proportioned, there are no jumps in the animation, etc. while in hand drawn if your not good at your craft, it's visible at frame 1, it's harder to maintain the proportions, easier to jump frames in animation, easier to have accidentally some character frozen or with a weird look on it's face... so it's better to train and to animate in CGI because is visually more forgiving to people that have good skills, but not great ones.

Also I think that hand drawn has something like an instinctive trigger for us, in the Ghibli films they can spend a lot of time animating "nothing". Drops from the rain, bugs, the wind moving the grass, a character just looking at the distance and breathing...there is not much going on there, but people respond to the passion of how well is recreated, even if they don't know anything about the animation process, they feel that some great skills are at work there, skills that are very rare.

In the same way, people respond better emotionally when the "camera" is moving while Ariel sings that "look at this trove, treasures untold" line, and you can see the hair moving, and her facial expressions work better than in the "let it go" sequence, even if, as a whole, it looks way better than "part of your world".

ce1ticmoon wrote:

PatrickvD wrote:With the huge leaps forward Tangled made in human character animation, HTTYD looked years apart from Tangled.

Either way, that was one hell of a year for animation.

Agreed on both counts.

Honestly, in terms of character animation, I'd say Tangled looks better than Frozen.

Agreed. Nice to see there are people out there who felt the same way.

I think Tangled set the bar really high for a number of aspects of CG animation.

Even with the outsourced work, I’d say The Simpsons fits the bill for a US feature…but yeah, it’s an exception for basis of comparison in a lot of other respects, like being an extension of a franchise with a couple dozen Emmys and Annies and a near-20-year run on TV to its credit before the film iteration (besides not *quite* fitting the family-friendly mold terribly well).

I’m a bit embarrassed at having forgotten the last Pooh film, particularly since it feel to me like the best and most authentic Pooh project in a long while. It’s a shame that Pooh’s track record has become something that could be keep people away from it.

The problem is that we are where we are now, no matter how exactly we got here. The personnel and infrastructure for 2D production at Disney doesn’t exist anymore—restarting 2D would mean building from the ground up, and in pursuit of something that shows no signs of mass popularity or good return on investment. Disney’s making features, Pixar’s making features, ToonDisney is adding to the theatrical release schedule…plus Dreamworks, Sony, Universal, Blue Sky, etc. The market’s pretty full. And the mass audience ain’t exactly the most discerning.

Fflewduur wrote:The problem is that we are where we are now, no matter how exactly we got here. The personnel and infrastructure for 2D production at Disney doesn’t exist anymore—restarting 2D would mean building from the ground up, and in pursuit of something that shows no signs of mass popularity or good return on investment. Disney’s making features, Pixar’s making features, ToonDisney is adding to the theatrical release schedule…plus Dreamworks, Sony, Universal, Blue Sky, etc. The market’s pretty full. And the mass audience ain’t exactly the most discerning.

Yeah, I understand that any of the major studios releasing 2D films would mean building a new division from the ground up, thus making it an unappealing prospect for the studios. That's why I don't expect anything to happen on the 2D front any time soon. But perhaps if CGI continues to show that it isn't a recipe for sure-fire success, one of the studios think that starting or re-starting a 2D division would be worth the risk. (Optimistic, I know.)

It was very unfortunate that Dreamworks' Me and My Shadow went back to development and may not see the light day. If the project moved forward, they would have needed to create a 2D division, and if the project was successful, could have led to more projects in 2D animation. But alas, I guess the time just wasn't right.