UPDATE: So I would like to make another addendum to my comment around 7:53. The reason why I (and others) aren't able to see the details that much is because of TH-cam compression. As stated by an actual animator who worked on the film on Twitter. So ignore that comment.
Just watched Sinbad (the Dreamworks movie), which combines 2D and 3D animation. 😮 It was incredible; much like the way Atlantis: The Lost Empire or The Prince of Egypt used both methods. Animating the main characters in 2D but the bigger set pieces in 3D gave the movie both heart and scale. Really makes me nostalgic for Princess and the Frog.
I still believe Disney peaked doing renaissance and post-renaissance era. I'm still a fan of movies like Big Hero and Zootopia, but the 2D animated movies just looks far more appealing to me.
It's definitely a toss up because a lot of people agree but yet a lot of people disagree with your opinion here. Disney is a business though, so it comes down to what will sell and be profitable.
The entire thing about the visual style of the movie is just even more insulting because the picture book illustrations are 2d and look way better than that lazy filter on the movie. The movie Claus exists and proves that Disney could have made an accurate animation of those really nice illustrations but they just chose not to because "boo hoo that's 2 hard"
It kind of feels like a lot of bigger companies and sometimes specific creators really .....crave to be making realistic films when that isnt really what animation is about. Its very saddening. I do wonder how much of it is wanting awards to take them seriously vs how much of it is similar to like some triple a game studios reaching for the most sophisticated cgi or graphics regardless of how much it makes sense for the specific concept.
Wasn't the first time I heard that perspective. Realism = Maturity. When it should be the story and how its conveyed among other things that makes it mature. Visuals shouldn't always equate to that.
yeah the whole point of animation is to be _animated_ , full of life. you have the freedom to create whatever you wish and yet these companies obsess over trying to be as realistic as possible. the over reliance on CGI does nothing but harm them because that's all they focus on, almost like it's nothing more then a competition of how realistic they can be.
I think Disney will only consider a straight up 2D film again when other studios have success with the medium. Similar to how it took Spiderverse for other Studios to finally ditch the semi-realistic Pixar style. Disney's biggest issue is that they're no longer the trend-setters in animation, which is ironic since they were the first to regularly put out animated features and it took until the 80s for any real competition to develop. Now they don't seem interested in being that anymore and now focus primarily on numbers and profits, falling back more on formulas and franchises. Now Sony and maybe even DreamWorks are the ones taking actual risks and moving animation forward. Sony is actually developing a 2D animated film directed by Genndy Tartakovsky, and I hope it's a big hit, because that might be the push they need to embrace their 2D staff and the charm of 2D drawings come to life.
A 3D workflow lets you copy/kitbash old assets and shave off some of the cost on the margins. It also means you can diffuse the art skill necessary, somewhat. You don't have to pay those key animators big salaries (or inbetweeners at all), you can get Generic Female and Generic Male rigs ready and let the computer do a fair bit of the work of animating, then hotswap the lookdev as needed on each new project. It's lazy, but it's cost effective. This, I believe, is the biggest reason 3D took off and has a death grip; the ROI is better, especially as you get to reuse assets. Sure, there are *limitations* on 2D and on 3D, like there are limitations of any art form. The real masters of the mediums manage to work within and leverage those limitations. Disney is no longer interested in mastery of the art.
You are right about 3D assets being more cost effective, but if you look at the budgets for the 90s Disney films(adjusted for inflation) you'll see that they were in fact cheaper to produce than the modern CGI films. It's probably not a matter of money. Don Bluth thinks that nowadays a 2D film could be done for just $55 million. That's quite a bit cheaper than the average Disney film. I think it's more of a matter of talent. There's a lot of artists who do 2D, but not quite at the level that would be necessary for a film like wish. Also, to pull off complex perspective and camera movements, they would need to hire a lot of software developers to put together a few programs for it and then train their whole CG team to do complicated compositing and integration. All of this may not be feasible right now. Especially with all these strikes going on and unrest in the California areas.
The whole debate of whether 2D is more expensive than 3D is nothing new. Many still say that the reason 3D films took over was because they were "cheaper" to make. But when you get down to some of the logistics it gets way muddier. Especially if you are comparing budgets of the past which would change with modern inflation.
Some of the strengths (and cost cutting) of 3D is the reuse of assets. There's a reason why the "Dreamworks smirk" and "Disney Generic Woman Face" is a Thing. Once the studio has working 3D assets, it's relatively easy to use them again and again with some minor plastic surgery. The ROI gets better over time, even if the art suffers. These studios aren't run for the art's sake. Also, as the tech improves, you can do more and more with the computers (hence the AI panic), and that's a more reliable investment curve than continually finding/training real artists.
2d is not expensive; we have new tech, so we don't have to use paper so much. What's wrong is that companies want money, so the idea of "2D expensive" is pushed because it takes real effort to make 2D while 3D can be just as or more expensive if there was REAL passion in it but there is none just reused stuff to the point where is generic. Yes, some CGI is made with passion, but it's still not as nice looking as 2D, and companies love it because you can get more quantity at the cost of quality, In short: 2D is not expensive. People are just lazy.
It's probably not a matter of money. Don Bluth thinks a 2D film could be done for just $55 million. That's quite a bit cheaper than the average Disney film. I think it's more of a matter of talent. There's a lot of artists who do 2D, but not quite at the level that would be necessary for a film like wish. Also, to pull off complex perspective and camera movements, they would need to hire a lot of software developers to put together a few programs for it and then train their whole CG team to do complicated compositing and integration. All of this may not be feasible right now. Especially with all these strikes going on and unrest in the California areas.
UPDATE: So I would like to make another addendum to my comment around 7:53. The reason why I (and others) aren't able to see the details that much is because of TH-cam compression. As stated by an actual animator who worked on the film on Twitter. So ignore that comment.
Just watched Sinbad (the Dreamworks movie), which combines 2D and 3D animation. 😮 It was incredible; much like the way Atlantis: The Lost Empire or The Prince of Egypt used both methods. Animating the main characters in 2D but the bigger set pieces in 3D gave the movie both heart and scale. Really makes me nostalgic for Princess and the Frog.
I still believe Disney peaked doing renaissance and post-renaissance era. I'm still a fan of movies like Big Hero and Zootopia, but the 2D animated movies just looks far more appealing to me.
Big Hero 6 is mid as hell, and Zootopia is trash
My two favorite Disney movies are Atlantis the lost empire and treasure planet.
It's definitely a toss up because a lot of people agree but yet a lot of people disagree with your opinion here. Disney is a business though, so it comes down to what will sell and be profitable.
The entire thing about the visual style of the movie is just even more insulting because the picture book illustrations are 2d and look way better than that lazy filter on the movie. The movie Claus exists and proves that Disney could have made an accurate animation of those really nice illustrations but they just chose not to because "boo hoo that's 2 hard"
It kind of feels like a lot of bigger companies and sometimes specific creators really .....crave to be making realistic films when that isnt really what animation is about. Its very saddening.
I do wonder how much of it is wanting awards to take them seriously vs how much of it is similar to like some triple a game studios reaching for the most sophisticated cgi or graphics regardless of how much it makes sense for the specific concept.
Wasn't the first time I heard that perspective. Realism = Maturity. When it should be the story and how its conveyed among other things that makes it mature. Visuals shouldn't always equate to that.
yeah the whole point of animation is to be _animated_ , full of life. you have the freedom to create whatever you wish and yet these companies obsess over trying to be as realistic as possible. the over reliance on CGI does nothing but harm them because that's all they focus on, almost like it's nothing more then a competition of how realistic they can be.
I think Disney will only consider a straight up 2D film again when other studios have success with the medium. Similar to how it took Spiderverse for other Studios to finally ditch the semi-realistic Pixar style.
Disney's biggest issue is that they're no longer the trend-setters in animation, which is ironic since they were the first to regularly put out animated features and it took until the 80s for any real competition to develop. Now they don't seem interested in being that anymore and now focus primarily on numbers and profits, falling back more on formulas and franchises. Now Sony and maybe even DreamWorks are the ones taking actual risks and moving animation forward. Sony is actually developing a 2D animated film directed by Genndy Tartakovsky, and I hope it's a big hit, because that might be the push they need to embrace their 2D staff and the charm of 2D drawings come to life.
👍👍👍
Just look at Ghibli, Studio WIT, Studio Saru or Madhouse and tell me how 2D is limiting them. 😂
CGI animation is more expensive then hand drawn animation.
A 3D workflow lets you copy/kitbash old assets and shave off some of the cost on the margins. It also means you can diffuse the art skill necessary, somewhat. You don't have to pay those key animators big salaries (or inbetweeners at all), you can get Generic Female and Generic Male rigs ready and let the computer do a fair bit of the work of animating, then hotswap the lookdev as needed on each new project. It's lazy, but it's cost effective. This, I believe, is the biggest reason 3D took off and has a death grip; the ROI is better, especially as you get to reuse assets. Sure, there are *limitations* on 2D and on 3D, like there are limitations of any art form. The real masters of the mediums manage to work within and leverage those limitations. Disney is no longer interested in mastery of the art.
You are right about 3D assets being more cost effective, but if you look at the budgets for the 90s Disney films(adjusted for inflation) you'll see that they were in fact cheaper to produce than the modern CGI films. It's probably not a matter of money. Don Bluth thinks that nowadays a 2D film could be done for just $55 million. That's quite a bit cheaper than the average Disney film. I think it's more of a matter of talent. There's a lot of artists who do 2D, but not quite at the level that would be necessary for a film like wish. Also, to pull off complex perspective and camera movements, they would need to hire a lot of software developers to put together a few programs for it and then train their whole CG team to do complicated compositing and integration. All of this may not be feasible right now. Especially with all these strikes going on and unrest in the California areas.
2d animation isn't limited, but they're mind
There is the short once upon a studio and that prove of 2d returning. I hope u see it
3D doesn't use very good animation
I just wanted all good things to have a happy ending especially tv shows for children
have you noticed that 3d animation looks better when it tries to mimic or hybridize with 2d animation?
Give originality a chance I won't be impatient
John Lassester quiting
Why do I get the feeling this was probably Disney said cause they heard Warner Bros. get away with it?
they need to watch some more animations from japan then lol
I really really really hope she gets fired.
I hope she gets fired.
Honestly I kinda disagree. 2D animation and 3D are both incredible. But it feels like 2D is more expensive and I can see why they switched to CG
The whole debate of whether 2D is more expensive than 3D is nothing new. Many still say that the reason 3D films took over was because they were "cheaper" to make. But when you get down to some of the logistics it gets way muddier. Especially if you are comparing budgets of the past which would change with modern inflation.
Some of the strengths (and cost cutting) of 3D is the reuse of assets. There's a reason why the "Dreamworks smirk" and "Disney Generic Woman Face" is a Thing. Once the studio has working 3D assets, it's relatively easy to use them again and again with some minor plastic surgery. The ROI gets better over time, even if the art suffers. These studios aren't run for the art's sake. Also, as the tech improves, you can do more and more with the computers (hence the AI panic), and that's a more reliable investment curve than continually finding/training real artists.
2d is not expensive; we have new tech, so we don't have to use paper so much. What's wrong is that companies want money, so the idea of "2D expensive" is pushed because it takes real effort to make 2D while 3D can be just as or more expensive if there was REAL passion in it but there is none just reused stuff to the point where is generic.
Yes, some CGI is made with passion, but it's still not as nice looking as 2D, and companies love it because you can get more quantity at the cost of quality,
In short: 2D is not expensive. People are just lazy.
This statement feels like Disney is so cheap despite owning so many IPs. They have so much money but are terrible at spending it.
It's probably not a matter of money. Don Bluth thinks a 2D film could be done for just $55 million. That's quite a bit cheaper than the average Disney film. I think it's more of a matter of talent. There's a lot of artists who do 2D, but not quite at the level that would be necessary for a film like wish. Also, to pull off complex perspective and camera movements, they would need to hire a lot of software developers to put together a few programs for it and then train their whole CG team to do complicated compositing and integration. All of this may not be feasible right now. Especially with all these strikes going on and unrest in the California areas.