CG vs Hand Drawn Animation - Nostalgia Critic
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.ย. 2024
- Though 3D animation has dominated the market for awhile, is there anything we're missing by not giving 2D another chance? Nostalgia Critic breaks down his thoughts on CG vs Hand Drawn Animations on a new editorial.
Support this week's charity - www.fh.org/
Follow us on Twitch - / channelawesome
Go to our Store for Awesome Stuff - theawesomestor...
Get some Nostalgia Critic T-Shirts here - shrsl.com/?~96c0
See more at our Site: channelawesome.com
Facebook: / channelawesome
Twitter: / channelawesome
Instagram: / channelawesome
Like Doug on Facebook: / 127127037353766
The ONLY Official TH-cam channel for the Nostalgia Critic and Channel Awesome.
New Nostalgia Critic episodes every Wednesday at 5PM CST.
#NostalgiaCritic
![[Watch Party] RoV Pro League 2024 Winter | ( Bacon Time Vs PSG )](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zM25REvnJW4/mqdefault.jpg)
What does everyone think of CG vs Hand Drawn animations?
Support this week's charity - www.fh.org/
Watch more Nostalgia Critic here - bit.ly/NCPlaylist13
Follow us on Twitch - www.twitch.tv/channelawesome
I more of a Hand-drawn kinda guy. I just appreciate the effort more.
also,critic can you do Vlogs of the DuckTales reboot they're bringing back characters from the old Disney afternoon they just brought back the rescue rangers
Both it depends on what your doing.
Cg and hand drawing are my favorite movie styles
I like both of them
Hand drawn is preferable to me
I literally just wrote a college paper over this
Let's hope it's A+ material!
Could we someday read it? And (if you did) which one did you say was better?
@Abdul Jalloh I'd pick both!!!!!!
Abdul Jalloh I didn’t choose a side. I just said that it doesn’t matter what medium you use, as long as you have a good story, characters and themes that audiences could relate to. The medium is just secondary.
Isaac Mapes isaac Tompkins
Years ago, CG animation was the rare treat while hand drawn was everywhere. Now, CG animation is everywhere while hand drawn is the rare treat.
wstine79 Once something can be mass produced you have to go through trash and decent work to get to the good stuff
@@bluesolace9052
Dude?! [Disney&Pixar]'s *trash* much more well-made than almost every hand-drawn anime industry, 3D is just superior, 2D is flat and empty also feel fake.
@@rickydinto You're an idiot.
@@rickydinto I personally disagree. Yes it does look "fake" in the sense it is not realistic. But do you really watch a classic disney movie or an anime or anything traditionally animated because you want the characters and backgrounds to look realistic, of course you'll be disappointed. But, think of it like this, it does not look real, yes, but the characters actually go through emotions, at least in the more complicated movies and TV shows. Obviously a looney toons short with bugs bunny isn't going to show character development, and won't have a story arc with ups and downs. But a classic disney film has character development, and well written characters, and characters that act like real people. That's what makes them classics. So, to put it simply, it does not look real, but it feels like real people interacting. Also, what NC brought up, even the pencil sketches are filled with life. So, I disagree personally.
@@rickydinto *cough* lion king 2019 *cough*
Really, though, it all comes down to the intent that was in the animation.
If animation is going to be viewed in the US as not "for kids" we need more adult focused animation that's not just sex, drugs and violence.
Allow me to introduce Genndy Tartakovsky's "PRIMAL".
Honestly, it's sort of making progress but also not, I mean some of the most popular ongoing shows for adults are made with 2D hand drawn animation, The Simpsons, Family Guy, Rick And Morty-
But the issue is that when people think "Adult" and "mature" in many countries, they either think raunchy or realistic.
Pretty much all adult animated shows focus on every day life and regular shenanigans.
And there are next to no mature animated movies, I honestly can't think of one.
The reason that in somewhere like Japan it's not like this, is because it's understood that mature does not equal realistic, and so they can make very mature, gritty, dark and deep animated works which don't need to take place in the "Real" world, although, there is still some degree of "artistic prejudice" over there for their own cultural reasons, it's a lot more open and widespread than it is here, because here, a mature animation is pretty much understood to just be a sitcom, but with offensive jokes and exaggerated actions.
Gravity falls!
@@Dmobley9901 Again, lemme point out "PRIMAL".
Allow me to introduce avatar: the last airbender. It may be targeted to kids, but it hits some pretty adult topics.
The masterpiece that is 'Klaus' shows how the two styles work best in harmony. 2-D traditional animation created the characters and their expressions as well as the objects around them and most of the backgrounds, but the CG created the light and tones and colouring. This made it look like an oil painting come to life.
Klaus really was a gorgeous looking movie. And 2D characters should be used with 3D lighting, color, and backgrounds more often! You get emotion from the characters and complexity from the backgrounds.
@@47ratsinahoodie I think the most beautifully animated scene is when the little boy opens the first gift and plays with it while Klaus looks on with a full heart for the first time in years. That scene alone told me what was eventually revealed; he always wanted children, but never had any of his own.
@@PoeticProse7 That scene truly conveyed so much with such simplicity. I personally couldn't decide on a most beautiful scene. I was crying or crying while smiling through most of the movie.
Loving Vincent was a movie that was literally a painting coming to life, but nobody saw it.
What do you mean 3D lighting, tones, and color? How?
"Honest," that's a very good way of describing hand-drawn animation. for the longest time i couldn't find the right word to describe it.
It captures the essence of an object rather than the look of it.
"Charming" is the word
@@ZarMakoupisGeORge Bullseye.
I really don't care if 3D is popular it's fine but 2D has that nostalgia feel that can't die. Still both 3D and 2D are still amazing each has their owns pros and cons
Also, 2D animation's only limitation is the skill of the artist. 3D is limited by the technology; albeit that technology has improved immensely from when it began.
Sadly, it can die.
The nostalgia dies with you.
And we will all miss the magic it brought.
But 2D animation is so much more than nostalgia, and even when the world we know becomes a different country, the early 2D animations will still shine. Because they had a feeling of life, maybe magic, to them that it's hard for 3D CGI to imitate, because it's based off of abstraction and simplification that distills the core images and makes them potent rather than needing a thousands moving parts to give the same feeling. So even if it isn't the exact same feelings they gave us, they will still be evocative and excellent pieces of art.
@@TheLolzKnight dude it's not just nostalgia some people just like 2d artstyle more
@@IAm-zo1bo lmao yeah ikr
@@IAm-zo1bo but boomers are dying
Imagine if when sculpting was invented, everyone said "No point painting anymore! Now we can see the person in 3d, so what's the point?" The point is that every art medium is important and influences the subject in different ways. 2d animation has an immediate, visceral connection to my emotions, in a way that no CG animation has ever done. I'm glad that CG gets respect, because all animation deserves respect. But I hate seeing 2d animation being dismissed as childish. It's not childish. I can't even express what it means to me, and it breaks my heart to see people disrespecting it because """""it's not realistic"""""" That's like saying that Impressionist paintings are bad because they're not realistic. The point was never to be realistic. The point is to express emotion. Judging animation's merit based on how realistic it is, is entirely missing the point of art.
I hate the term "realistic" when people really want to say is "familiar." No one wants to watch anything that's realistic. Unless they want to watch B-roll shots that aren't digitally enhanced and they can find in documentaries. Even cameras do not capture light and scenery realistically. For instance, no one can take a selfie and have it look how they and their settings actually looked. It would take a great deal of compositing and photoshop to get a selfie to look how the actual person and background looked before taking the picture. That's why there are film scores. People do not like to watch movies without music. It's boring and bland.
And you entirely missed the point of the video
I agree, it's sad that how people (mostly Hollywood) dismiss 2D animation as childish and unrealistic. Just because something isn't 3D doesn't mean it's instantly better (as proven by the Rap City Street Kids). When I was little I loved traditional animation even more than I did CGI. I did love movies like the Incredibles and Toy Story, but for some reason the 2D characters seemed more real to me. Maybe it was it was the way the animator drew the character's emotions that made them more realistic, I don't know.
A guy that goes to church with me was in an animation program at the local college. When I asked him a few months later how it was going he told me that he changed his major. It was all computer animation.
I remember trying to make a 3D model of a soda can in Photoshop, it was really hard.😫
I agree with you than nothing more,
When I was a lot younger during through
a Dysfunctional life, I grew up with both
Hand Drawn and Computer Generated Animations.
One of my favorite films that was easily the Number 1 choice in my spot and have been doing both of these subjects was
The Iron Giant.
It may not be the first one, but it's one of the best ones.
Of what Doug Walker said during in his reviews and critical points so far,
he is indeed right when you think about at times.
Hand Drawn basically came out first long before CG even was born,
so where getting a lot of both
Films and Television Shows that are done in Hand Drawn animation as well as CG mixed into one.
So case in point, I think hand drawn is way more better than
CG, because not only they look Beautiful to look at as they are becoming a massive improvement, but in a specific way,
It still grows fr within, it will never be forgotten, it will always be goi g on from Generation from Generation to another.
Just like how the
Entire Earth has been through when it first started in it's early years back to
Year 1, where it first started it all.
And I would hope that
Hand Drawn will
get all of the respects it deserves more better than this, even way better than CG.
CG vs Hand drawn witch is better
Me: Both when its done right
That may truly be a currently lost art.
Yeah... which the "history" - as presented by Doug - seems to skim over if not blatantly ignore. The short version is that, while some folks probably did react how Doug said for why he said, I'm pretty sure a decent amount of us didn't. For example, Disney's hit movies stopped being hits because they - y'know - stopped being as good. Which wasn't the first time that was a problem for Disney. Shifting to 3D sooner wouldn't have saved stuff like Hercules, or if it did, it'd be one of those "You all actually liked that back in the '90s?!" films.
The problem is that west never does 2d right anymore. Everything just kinda looks like Johnny Test.
@@KamisamanoOtaku If they did Coco or Up as 2d, they still could've been great.
@@mostmelon Yeah, but if Hunchback of Notre Dame or Hercules would have been CGI, they may have succeeded but as novelties, which was my point.
I feel Craig Johnson from Blame Society said it best:
"In my opinion, cartoons are the greatest form of art. It is the highest form of art. It can bring in everything: painting, it brings in storytelling, it brings in poetry, it brings in like, all the things you need to learn and all the types of art. You know, it's like, they have to design houses that are (like) exist inside this world.
If you're watching a cartoon, the suspension of disbelief is so easy. But when you watch CGI, which is basically like cartoons' new and hip brother, it's so easy to say, 'That looks fake.'. But here we are in this world, or in the world of any cartoon, and you never think that looks fake!
'Look! It's Snoopy, he's walking around on his hind legs, like a dog does.'
And very few movies can outdo cartoons."
Interestingly, during the 20s and 30s, critics and artists(!) actually considered Walt Disney to be one of the great artists of the modern age because of his studio's contributions to animation. Indeed, Disney drew adoration from artists like Diego Rivera and Salvador Dali, the latter of whom once considered Walt to be one of America's surrealists. Sergei Eisenstein, the great Soviet filmmaker behind the likes of Battleship Potemkin, apparently cited Snow White as his favorite film of all time.
Are you talking about cg animation or cg live action?
I believe Mr. Johnson referred to CGI animation, not effects in live action film. Certainly was my interpretation.
I prefer movies over cartoons. Rush Hour 2 is my favorite movie ever. Spider-Man Far From Home brought me a feeling that a cartoon could never bring. Watching the first 2 Terminator movies for the very first time brought me a thrilling feeling an animated cartoon could never bring.
I could care less who Craig Johnson is, or any other pretentious douchebag you bring up. From what I can tell, fans have "2d animation" are just a bunch of loud keyboard warriors trying to shout over others. "Blame Society" sounds like an incredibly pretentious title as is.
If you personally feel cartoons outdo movies fine. I personally feel you can shove it.
The biggest drawback to CG is that the more "realistic" it looks, the more it enters into the uncanny valley (e.g. _Mars Needs Moms_ , _Polar Express_ , etc). Therefore it becomes more distracting than it is engaging. If they want something to look more "realistic", then why not just shoot in live-action? Sure, there are limits to shooting in live-action, but it's at least cheaper compared to CGI. That's why with films like _Inside Out_ , _Coco_ , etc, they're detailed but not to the point of them looking "uncanny". There needs to be a balance between visual realism and artistic emotionality (or simplicity). With 2D animation, while not necessarily looking realistic, feels more alive and emotionally driven. I think it definitely proves that "realistic" doesn't automatically mean "better".
I heartily agree. Take anime for instance; love it or hate it, it proves this fact extremely well. I used to abhor the style until I branched out and watched a couple shows a few years ago that helped me see the style in a new, artistic and mature light. Of course, you look at an anime face and know that it IN NO WAY looks realistic. Moreover, the movements of the animation can be very limited and "janky." However, everything that at first seems odd and realism-breaking (ie, large eyes and exaggerated expressions) does its job in adding an incredible amount of emotion. Though I never thought I would say it, anime has made me FEEL more than any CG movie has in a long time. Proof that, in hand drawn aspects, you might want to avoid realism!
What Uncanny Valley? Polar Express remains a gorgeous holiday classic.
Rgoid it’s a fantastic film for sure. But if you go back and watch it there are some facial expressions that are horrifying to look at because they are so realistic but they still fail within an animated medium.
@@Rgoid Uncanny Valley is psychological effect when something look too much human, but bit off it cause strong repulsive effect. It is why you actually never try to be too realistic with humans, or if you do spend extra lot cash to avoid effect. Through many people still would see it (hilariously that include overuse of plastic surgery).
You should watch Loop on Disney+. It looks very real, down to the pores on the characters and the tiniest of ripples in the water. Yet it doesn’t set foot in the uncanny valley. I think it’s because, although it looks overly realistic, the character models still have that Disney charm(big eyes, longer fingers, button nose, etc.) It’s very strange how Disney can edge so close to the uncanny valley, yet never go into it anymore.
I love how Cgi nowadays with films like Into the Spider-verse and the peanuts movie gave 3d Animation a more 2d feel and look , a nice combination of both of the art forms .
@Nathaniel Foga ......Klaus was 2D animation that had a photoshop light filter over it to give the illusion of CGI.
I Wish Movies Could Do That More
The live-action/animated Tom and Jerry movie is confirmed to have CGI animation maintaining the look and feel of 2D animation. The mix of the Roger Rabbit and Peanuts movie treatment.
@@thecriticalthinkeroutsidet4947 ......The short CGI animation called "Daffy's Rhapsody" seems more likely what the Tom and Jerry live action film will be going for......
I hated the choppiness of Enter The Spiderverse but the art style i liked. Seeing lower FPS on animation i can see past easily but on CGI it hurts for me to watch making it hard to see it without thinking something is wrong with what im watching.
Honestly, I never had a preference. I've always seen it as if you have a good story to accompany it then the animation comes off even more beautiful. Kind of like how if someone has unattractive personality they come off as unattractive.
But what makes an unattractive personality is subjective.
Nostalgia Critic: Which is better 2D or 3D animation?
1D animation: Am I a joke to you?
???: Amateurs...
1D animation: What did you say?!?
0D animation: AMATEURS!!!
My brain just imploded...
@@rotciv557 -1d: Amateurs...
Gimme those moving l i n e s
1D: looking at the side of the paper for an hour.
10/10 would watch again
I will say: I don't care. I do wish 2D movies were as prevalent, but at the end of the day I just want a good movie, whether it's live-action, 2D animated, CG animated, stop motion animated, or puppetry, the visuals are a bonus, but it's the story and characters I care about.
When I was studying 2D animation back in the early 2000s, there was a fear going around that 2D animation would go extinct because of 3D. Pretty much in the same way that back in the Victorian era, painters were scared that photography would make them obsolete.
True. But what about Flash Animation?
So what? Does that mean this whole concern of which one will overshadow the other isn't necessary?
I say thanks to Spiderman into the Spiderverse and Arcane mix 2d with 3d 3D animation
@@neilhannan7525 "3d 3D"
And now the same thing will happen with 3D and AI.
I wished you would've talked about Ed, Edd, n' Eddy and how it used the human error in hand drawn animation to create something truly unique.
or how Netflix's Klaus used a special shading to make their 2D drawings look tridimensional.
I prefer hand-drawn, though Brad Bird does a wonderful fusion of both.
EDIT: I thought it was spelled "Byrd" in this case, but I guess not.
Jackson Rushing I didn’t know about this, when did Brad Byrd fuse both?
@@bluesolace9052 The Iron Giant.
Klaus did a great combination of both 2D and CGI
I prefer stop motion, hand-made and 3D yet not CG. Too bad it gets the least amount of love/attention. Hell, some people get creeped out just because it's stop motion, but I've always found it fascinating, seeing real objects move on their own.
@@supertoast4946 Aardaman Studio's is best at it imo.
My two cents as an animator: 2D animation looks timeless, but CG animation will always be limited by the technology of the time.
That was true in like the first 15-20 years of CGI, but it is long since not the case anymore. Today's technology has reached the point where any new advancements won't transform the picture radically. The render already can be literally photorealistic and the animation software can produce rigs for animation of any complexity.
THIS. This is the only difference between CG and 2D, thank you sis.
Hi fellow artist, 3D modeler here ^^
I feel that when 3D focus less on being super realistic and more on being something of its own, it tends to age better. There will always be this uncanny valley with trying to reproduce something perfectly in 3D (especially if said thing has to move around). When creating animation, the focus should always be in bringing a great story, and being unique and distinctive artistically speaking. Otherwise, it's just another generic (even if pretty) movie!
misscrackwood Good point.
The thing with animation is it's fictional, it's not supposed to look realistic because it's fictional and when you try make a fictional thing look realistic it just sucks it's trying too hard. That's why 2D is always better because it's fictional and it's not trying to be realistic, now if you want something to look more realistic then the best is always using actual real actors and real life cinematography that's what movies are. CGI should of just stuck with being used for special effects and not a medium/platform to do all their work on. CGI is a tool not a medium
It is STUPID how much joy I felt at just that few-seconds-long clip of Mob Psycho 100.
Rainy Meadows mob psycho 100 is my favorite anime
I think Doug became a fan of DBZ and Mob Psycho 100
No, not at all, it was so weirdly vindicating
Well, your life is your own
Mob Psycho 100 is a great example too, because due to its more simplified character designs, it's able to have many "honest" and emotionally driven bursts of animation, like Doug describes.
Honestly, the Disney’s movies that weren’t big hits like: Treasure Planet and Hercules were pretty good, the audience just wasn’t into the handrawn style anymore and that’s what brought their demise.
I mean I still miss Hand Drawn but that doesn’t mean I don’t mind CGI....hell I’ll say best ones are Tangled.
welll, treasure planet was released against the first Harry Potter. I'm pretty sure that was the problem and not it's overuse of Deep Canvas or CGI (correction: it was Harry Potter 2. just makes it worse.)
The difference is Hercules was a mild success, but Treasure Planet was a box-office disaster
Elara Nova And now Disney's remaking Hercules...I don't know if I should be scared or be excited...
@@sonicmania6753 No it wasn't HP was 2001, TP was 2002. They did not compete, Disney just didn't bother marketing TP properly.
I'm disappointed you didn't bring up Ed, Edd n Eddy.
Danny Antonucci held hand drawn animation in very high regard. That show became the last major cartoon to air that used cel animation.
Not to mention the small errors in the process of drawing things by hand played into the entire style of the show.
I never knew that, holy shit that's impressive!
Thanks for bringing up Ed, Edd, and Eddy. It's my favorite Cartoon Network show and one of my #1 favorite cartoons of all time alongside Ren and Stimpy and House of Mouse. Granted I already knew about the hand drawn process of Danny's cartoon, I agree that Doug should've brought that up as well. He also should've mentioned Green Eggs and Ham, a gorgeous cartoon that's hand drawn frame by frame just Ed, Edd, and Eddy. If Doug mentioned both and gave the win to hand drawn animation, this video would've been complete.
@@retrolord8546 Green Eggs & Ham was such a good show! The character development, the worldbuilding, the colors, the silly inventions, and the trademark Seuss artstyle! It's all there and more! I was blown away with how good this show was! It was fun yet mature, bright yet sad, and wildly creative yet still relatable. This was the best direction Seuss's legacy has gone in years! It was animated in a way that wasn't limited. It really deserves more credit just as much as we need more episodes.
@@calebdonaldson8770 Luckily for you and all of us, Green Eggs and Ham is getting another season.😁😁
If Ed, Edd n Eddy didn't end with the movie (Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show), then there will be more bad episodes of it.
I would love to see another movie where live-action people interact with hand-drawn 2-D animated characters. Why not have another Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
Did you forget about Space Jam? And that other Looney Tunes movie with Brendan Fraser and Steve Martin?
@@louisduarte8763 Back in Action.
Space Jam is getting a sequel but knowing what may be a crucial part of the plot* (which isn't related to basketball, funnily enough), I don't think it will end up well.
Plot point spoilers: only warning
There's a coding camp involved. I don't know how it fits in. I just know there's a coding camp and that LeBron James doesn't like taking pictures with kids.
@@47ratsinahoodie And there's also the upcoming Tom and Jerry movie.
@@thecriticalthinkeroutsidet4947 Aw, crap. They better not make them talk or be all buddy buddy. And they also need to not have the movie center around some human.
Both? Both.
Both is good. A great example that should've been shown is the animation in Clone Wars 2008-it's distinct, even though it's CGI. It grew and changed and has some incredible detail to it. Season 7 has some of the most absolutely astounding expression work I've ever seen-for the most part, it's pretty subtle actually. Particularly in the Siege of Mandalore arc with Ahsoka and Rex. With traditional animation, I just don't think the Clone Wars 2008 series, would have worked as well.
Traditional animation has merit, and shouldn't be forgotten though. I'm quite saddened that Disney has pretty much taken Pixar's style as their own, but I can see why-Princess and the Frog was the nail in the coffin for western traditional animation. The public said "no thanks" so the studios obliged. But traditional animation is far from dead-it's just....very rare for now. Hopefully it'll have its time in the sun again. I think it's actually really nice to see it beautifully blended with CGI-almost like when that happens it's an homage to that style once so popular but now just mostly seen as a relic of animation.
Exactly. Plus clone wars took inspiration from Japanese manga and anime that's cool.
Your thoughts on the CLONE WARS 2d Micro-series? The one that Cartoon Network had between Episodes II & III?
Plus, the clone wars itself had its 2D counterpart from 2003. Both have distinct styles that say very different things and convey very different feels. The 2003 clone wars felt extremely fast-paced and really simple and focused more on the action, and the samurai jack 2D style reflected that, while the 2008 clone wars took its time, dealt much more with character development and writing, and also made more realistic feeling action and set pieces while also combining paintbrush type textures and colors to the 3D objects. Both styles are great and managed to convey very different styles in not just the look, but feel and attitude of the series.
Though there was a clone wars series before the 2008 one with hand drawn animation. It a different show but its also damn impressive and creative with little dialogue and action
@@louisduarte8763 I actually think it's pretty underrated. I personally love Clone Wars 2008 more, but my god the style of that show is STUNNING to look at. Plus overall it's got good stories there too. And the character designs were pretty interesting. I'd really recommend it to those who haven't seen it. Anakin vs Ventress was SO freaking sweet.
CGI: Beautiful Backgrounds and Landscapes
2D: Beautiful Characters and Movement.
Answer: Treasure Planet is the perfect animated movie.
Oh man... The Road To El Dorado, too. Great use of combination 2D/3D.
I vote for Treasure planet 😁
Martian Neanderthal I believe there should be a combination of both 2D and 3D like the backgrounds are 3D and the lighting is 3D but the characters are 2D
The thing with animation is it's fictional, it's not supposed to look realistic because it's fictional and when you try make a fictional thing look realistic it just sucks it's trying too hard. That's why 2D is always better because it's fictional and it's not trying to be realistic, now if you want something to look more realistic then the best is always using actual real actors and real life cinematography that's what movies are. CGI should of just stuck with being used for special effects and not a medium/platform to do all their work on. CGI is a tool not a medium
@@GrowingDownUnder that's an awesome nice take sir, but does it apply to video games? IMO, i think you can but it's better the other way around, is it not? 3D character in a 2D world/background.
I can't believe that Flash animation wasn't touched upon at all. Most 2D animation these days uses Flash and is not "drawn from the ground up".
@@unicornlover1237 the MLP movie actualy used a different technique then flash.
Unicorn Lover123
I think he means the crappy 2D bone puppet animation that is running rampant on TV for little kids. It’s what you get when you’re too lazy for hand drawn but too cheap for 3D. Not everything animated with Flash uses it, but I think that’s what people mean when they complain about Flash. The show version of MLP uses 2D puppetry, but it’s one of the few to actually put in the effort to make it look like there aren’t any bones. Then on the other end you have stuff like Sally Bollywood or the Gravity Falls Pilot where you can just see exactly where the bones are on the puppet and it looks awful. That’s why Alex Hirsch was embarrassed to show it btw.
@@MrKlausbaudelaire Yeh. People try to be edgy here 0_0
@@rainpooper7088 As opposed to frame by frame animation. Honestly I think that segmented 2D animation is a horrible middle ground between 2D and 3D.
Njideka Ike Actually flash is kind of outdated, everyone is all about toon boom now
I can say with full confidence that 2D animation, with all due respect to CGI, ages better in the long run. The same comparison can be said between photography & painting. A picture taken by camera is easier & quicker than drawing a painting (especially if anyone remembers what Kodak cameras were), but the painting ages far better than a camera does in the long run (especially oil paintings).
I'm not completely sure that's fair.. If the first major 2D animation was 1928 with Mickey Mouse (arguably as much as 10 years earlier), I'd say that most things before say Cinderella in 1950 look noticeably old, especially Snow White. Not bad, but clearly somewhat dated. That's maybe 22 years of animation which hasn't really stood the test of time. The first major 3D is Toy Story (1995), so anything up to 2017 needs the same forgiveness in its quality of finish.
Both forms can produce bad work, and 3Ds propensity for REALLY bad makes it more noticeable, but I do think things like Shrek and early Pixar will stand up in 30 years as much as Dumbo and Bambi do now.
Its also very much style vs graphics. Even if it ages, good designs don't go bad
@@MarcTamlynThat's profound. When I think of Mickey Mouse, I think of Fantasia. Even as it nears 80 years old, the animation is still a slight to behold. Thanks for your input, though.
@@MarcTamlyn It's worth keeping in mind that there's a distinction between being "dated" and "vintage", tho; besides, I don't think it's fair to draw on more experimental stuff to draw that point - that was the beggining of the industry, after all...
@@mullerpotgieter I totally disagree. The original Incredibles movie looks hideous by todays standards. The Incredibles 2 looks amazing. But both are using the exact same designs and aesthetic.
Imagine if Ren and Stimpy was made with CGI...
ew
I would barf...
Ren and Stimpy looks terrible. Dont know what the show is about. It is the worst art ever
OH God that would been cringe to watch
Yeah by the same studio that worked on hotel transylvania
It really depends on the studio, budget, and directors. Their have been awful 2d and great cgi , but it all depends on the talent behind it
bassicly
Mud man Ag society and box office too.
That's pretty true.
Exactly. I've already mentioned this, but look at Clone Wars. That's a very distinct style of CGI, which is something you don't see very often. CGI styles are usually just kinda all the same looking. But with CW, it's not. And that's got to be appreciated.
you say it like it is that means you make good points
For me as long as the story and characters are good and charming, i don't mind what animation style they use.
Bro, did you see how Berserk 2016 and 2017 went down? Spectacular story, butchered artwork.
@@7pop521 I don't really watch anime, but what i'm saying is that cg or hand drawn as long as the story and characters are good, then they can use whatever style they want, that does not excuse bad animation.
Yeah I don’t get the hate on CG animation but I personally love both
I mind, I hate 2d animation it's shit
Same. A film or tv show could have good animation, but a bad story, or bad animation but a good story.
Disney movies were more charming with 2D animation. Disney movies are not supposed to be "realistic" they're based off of fairy tales. While Tangled and Frozen look nice, and I love both of them, they just don't feel like Disney. They feel more like Dreamworks movies. And yes, I know animation is evolving blah, blah, blah, compare Snow White to the Lion King blah, blah, blah, but I just really think hand drawn animation feels more Disney than CG does
I kinda agree. This is the best way I can put it: Disney should stick with 2D, leave the 3D to Pixar. But it’s obvious that while everyone is showing love to the old 2D classics, the new ones are without a doubt bringing more profit in. But it still would be nice if Disney continued their animated classics by occasionally making a new 2D film.
x KNYTE x Another problem is that since they are both alike, what’s the use with Pixar.
@Michael Schaumburg imagine calling a teenager a boomer for literally no apparent reason whatsoever. If nobody cares, then why does this vid even exist?
@Michael Schaumburg no one ever said it was. Trust me, I know that not every 2D animation is great, even if they’re considered “vintage.”
@Michael Schaumburg Did someone hurt your snowflake feelings? Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And how do you know me or xKNYTEx are boomers? I don't know what generation he's from, but I'm between millennial and genZ and I prefer 2D over 3D animation when it comes to Disney. It doesn't mean I don't like the new movies, I love Pixar movies, Zootopia, and Tangled, but I personally think 2D Disney animation is more charming than CG. You are allowed to have your opinion but you don't need to go around insulting people who don't agree with you
Ironically, hand drawn animation feels more real than realistic CGI.
James the M no it doesn’t
Luigi Marinus Gaming yes it does
Gammahamma no 3D animation looks more realistic than hand drawn animation because you can see them move their whole body
@@PussInBootsTheLastWishFan2003 except hand drawn does that too, as you can see in the Robin Hood and Peter Pan sketches in the video
Luigi Marinus Gaming did you even watch the full video
I love how he referenced 2 of the worst Christmas specials ever for this video!
I’ve noticed that even bad 2D films still look visually appealing and simple and you can still appreciate something from it like Doug mentioned, while bad 3D films... yeah there’s no hope for them. They just look crappy regardless and they are the stuff of nightmares.
Thats what I though, a still frame of Christmas Tree have nothing wrong, the characters still look appealing and well-designed, but just looking at ANY frame of the other one is insulting to the human eyes.
😦 I chose the Christmas Tree one too. While the characters' eyes look dead inside, it still gave a much better story and was entertaining of how bad it was compared to the Street Kids one.
What’s fun about It. Is he did reviews for those movies as well like a fun callback
But I have to say, the Christmas Tree is NOT the worst 2D has to offer. I would have to say Twinkle Nora Rock Me is the worst 2D have to offer.
"Even bad 2D films still look visually appealing..."
Um... how many Nostalgia Critic episodes have you actually seen?
I always thought the slow move towards more CGI was more of a business decision change than a public demand one.
I agree but if I may suggest you replace "demand" with "interest"; because that was definitely the case. I recommend watching Rebeltaxi where Pan Pizza posits that one of the unsung reasons behind the shift to CG came from the oversaturation of inexpensive 2D films based on popular but usually niche even alienating television shows getting theatrical releases. By the early 2000s we'd seen it all and the novelty of CGI sounds way more exciting if you think about it like that. So no I agree that audiences didn't outright demand for more 3D films, we might as well have. At this point though, it definitely feels like a detached market decision as the big flops that killed 2D (Treasure Planet, Titan AE, and Sinbad) are all pushing twenty years ago at this point and the studios commitment to never look back has put us in the same place we were in the late 90s to early 00s.
Doug, that was beautiful man. I'm an artist, and have been making comics for 20 years now. I understand the hard work, and dedication that goes into hand drawn artwork. Especially when you're the only person doing it! It brought a tear to my eye, bravo Nostalgia Critic, bravo!!
Vann Comics
As my late grandma once told me, “The art of making art, is putting it together. That’s what counts.”
💜💜💜
Hand drawn has its quirks. Like those cursed in between frames from scooby doo etc. But I prefer hand drawn. CGI just looks too manufactured.
Scrumpey I think I prefer CGI. It pulls me in and immerses me in the world due to it being more realistic
Some CGI shows also have 'cursed' in-between frames, for stylistic purposes
I would say that CGI has smooth movements, it lacks that snap. I can always tell CGI when I feel that lack of snap. Its one thing CGI, even the best, hasn't seemed to recreate.
That sort of weight and quick movement
Scrumpey Understand. I just hate how CGI would give its characters that weird crooked side smile or what TvTropes would call "The Dreamwork Face". You see it in every...single...film!!
I think that is more a problem with how some CGI is being made by big corporations rather than CGI as a whole. Look at the TF2 shorts and the masterpiece that is "Expiration Date", which is stylized with TF2's fantastic character design and has an incredible attention to detail, look at "Here's The Plan" which uses a very unique, soft look and style of animation that also has a ton of attention to detail, look at the beauty that is "Into The Spiderverse" with its blend of techniques while still being mostly CGI, and the list goes on. The problem isn't CGI. CGI is a flexible tool that allows you to make whatever look and feel you want same as hand-drawn, but it's easier to not try and just make the same exact damn Pixar-ish "Boss Baby" look because you don't have to work with any new style that hasn't been proven to be appealing and you also draw in more audiences that demand nothing noteworthy from animation.
_The Prince of Egypt_ Probably the best, most beautiful work of art I've ever seen.
Dreamwork’s best work
Which is ironic because the CGI in that movie sucks. It just wasn't there yet in 1998.
Wow I'm surprised there's no showcase of Star Wars the Clone Wars 2008. That's a perfect example of how CGI can grow and the style pays homage to Japanese manga and anime.
While Clone Wars 2003 is a prime example of hand-drawn badassery :)
@@chaoticcranium best of both worlds
@Reality is an illusion clone wars cgi is a homeage to anime and manga? i thought it was based off the 2003 clone wars and samurai jack.
I always preferred hand-drawn animation over CG. Too bad I can only watch these type of animation on my own these days because nearly everyone I know sees them as too kiddie for them.
show them fritz the cat or heavy traffic. guaranteed to purge all sense of childhood innocence in the medium
Make 'em watch Berserk ( '97 or the trilogy, not the 2016 garbage). They won't think it's kiddie after that... But they may be traumatized. Amazing story though.
Shows like but ugly Martians haven't age well cause it is cgi but tv cgi animation was developing in that Era that show came out but the same area that movies like the lion King Aladdin and etc are timeless eventually cgi won't age well but 2d will age well
Show them Grave of the Fireflies
Just show them Stuff like Vampire Hunter D, Hellsing or Monster. Monster is pretty interesting because it takes place in the real world from mid 80 to mid 90s in germany and tschechin mostly. That's all anime by the way, so if you dont like anime
Disney's last traditionally animated films were The Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh (2011). Love Princess and the Frog, including the songs like Friends on the Other Side. Shame it was overshadowed by the release of Avatar (which ironically now falls under the Disney umbrella). I love hand drawn animation, I wish hand drawn could make a comeback. Happy I got to see the studio where Mulan and Lilo & Stitch were produced in FL
You gotta wonder what the hell Disney was thinking when they put Winnie the Pooh up against the last Harry Potter movie.
@@rckblzr Part of me thinks that was a deliberate attempt to sabotage the film and make case that hand drawn movies just don't sell. Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh were made because of John Lasseter's clout and I'm pretty sure Bob Iger and his yes-men would need a good reason to discourage him. Or, more realistically, it was just apathy from the Disney executives because you know that if they put some effort, they can market anything like crazy.
@@andrewchung2940 Right, cause if Disney's known for anything, it's for them wanting to make as little money as possible...
@@rckblzr No my point is, the Disney company's priority and enthusiasm is in the CGI movies, not hand drawn, and the lukewarm marketing of Winnie the Pooh 2011 seems to be reflective of that attitude. They see it as something non-profitable, they don't give much care or effort in the marketing or release, the movie doesn't do business, and they are more than content to just be done away with it.
So they showed the medium the door for a cartoon bear?
I like that into the spiderverse kinda combines cgi and hand drawn animation I’m hoping for more films like it because a lot of cgi films all look the same yet into the spiderverse is like a moving comic book that’s kinda what sponge on the runs animation reminds me of
Then someone mentions rotoscoping and everything gets much more complicated.
But St James Infirmary Blues dude.
wariodude128 Why does rotoscoping have such a bad reputation?
@@Bolbi145 No, it's just that it involves taking the movements of a real person and animating them.
wariodude128 Some people claim it’s cheating
LegoGuy87 Still takes skill
Lion king 2019 is such a downgrade.. the music.. be prepared, the jokes.. the rug joke is replaced with a dumb relative joke. And the expressions. There are none.. this movie is soul less.
Agreed
none of those impact on the animation style used. with better music, jokes and writing.....it could have exceeded even the 2D one
Except the visuals honesty the visuals look better then the orginal other then that I agree.
The new Lion King reminds me of the saying "Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should". Like the whole hyper realism seems less like they did it because it was needed and more just to say that they did a "live action" Lion King movie.
I don't like things being done just because in movies. If the CGI had added something the original didn't have I wouldn't mind but it actually was a step down from the original.
@The God Emperor Himself agreed
A Nostalgia Critic video with Spongebob in the thumbnail? I’ve never clicked faster in my life
He seriously needs to review the SpongeBob movie
Pawn Hearts is amazing
Schismatic Audio YES
Carter Lovejoy Yes! get on that Doug!
Nostalgia Critic needs to do a whole SpongeBob month
One reason for this fight: we are getting good cgi animated movies, but we aren’t really getting hand drawn animation
because Disney will not allow it
Kevin Boudreaux that’s defiantly not true, there are many independent studios creating beautiful films like Song of the Sea and Klaus. These films aren’t as profitable as CG so larger studios don’t tend to male them, that’s the reason why they’re not from Disney or Dreamworks. Hand drawn films are still good, there’s just less of them and they’re less marketed than the big budget films, if you look and follow independent studios you’ll find them
Klaus.
There.
Handdrawn.
@@Hromovlad1 yeah they're more worried about making the same thing that they already made but in live action😑
Are cracked? Just look how Japan is doing with Hand drawn animation.
SpongeBob definitely looks better hand drawn than CG!
Why? SpongeBob’s design works in CG, doesn’t it?
I tend to prefer 2d. CG just tends to feel... empty. Not every time, but: Princess & the Frog > Frozen.
But what about wall e?
@@Blue-Apple-fc9eo Wall E wouldn't be the same without the CG animation. I think because the world is all metallic, dusty, and robotic, which looks amazing in CG.
(The same animation made the humans in that movie look unsettling to me, though. So it depends on the style and what's being animated.)
@@savannahlevy97 Agreed both animations is really good their own taste stop comparing them.
@@HarBoterMan yea Agreed.
@@HarBoterMan Lacking life. Look into a porcelain doll's glass eyes, then look into a normal human's, and you'll kind of get what I mean by empty. The doll (usually) looks pretty, like some of the CG. it also feels empty, like some (much) of the CG. The doll often has that uncanny valley feel, like some of the CG, and it can be creepy. Like some of the CG. This is less of a problem with drawn 2d characters. Usually when they feel uncanny or creepy, it's intentional.
One of the few CG things I felt was really good and lively was Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. Which isn't surprising, since they intentionally gave it that drawn feel, mixing CG and 2d. Beautiful work. :)
I wouldn't mind seeing both types side by side. It kinda depends on what type of film.
Lion King works as 2d, while the 3d one looks off.
CoCo work in 3d, but most of the visuals I couldn't see in 2d.
Into the SpiderVerse uses a combination of both that makes it look breathtaking.
It's strange that CG is considered a replacement to Hand-Drawn animation, when it is more a digital form of stock animation.
its an art style!.
To my knowledge there are more examples of Disney reusing their 2d animation than any of the 3d animated films reusing their animations or assets(Outside of various flashback kind of sequences, obviously). Even for sequels it is often better to just remake it from scratch.
NC: Japan like I mentioned before is still mixing the two beautifully as well.
Berserk 2016: Allow me to introduce myself...
Yes, there are of course some bad ones. The animation in Berserk 2016 is just plain bad. But he's still correct. Two anime that were made fairly recently that were absolutely stunning were Violet Evergarden (made in 2018 by Kyoto Animation, and was one of the last things they made before the fire) and Record of Grancrest War (made in 2018 by A-1 Pictures); both of which mainly relied on 2D animation but used CG every now and then.
I would highly recommend both of them if you haven't seen either of them yet; they're both really good.
@@matthewmuir8884 I'm not denying that. It's just that shows like Violet Evergarden that blend 2D and CGI so fluidly (as you've mentioned) are extremely rare to come by. Most anime you see that incorporate CG in some form turn out very poorly, ending up as janky designs with laggy movements and distractingly out of place. Though granted, that mostly has to do with the abysmal work conditions in Japan so I can't really blame the animators themselves.
So it's amusing to hear Doug talk as if they were always doing a good job at blending the two in the first place. Not that I expected that from him since he rarely talks about anime but I digress.
You should check Beastars and Dorohedoro, they are entirely CGI and lemme tell you something..... they look pretty amazing.
Anime is like my favorite medium right now because it still uses 2d but uses 3d to elevate the 2d
Berserk's a case of the animators/directors not knowing how to use their tools properly, and not having enough time to do it properly. Animation takes time and a lot of 3D animators in anime seem to use motion capture without adjusting the animation to look more fluid, just because it saves time, you end up with stiff models that look janky because they aren't adjusted properly and because they animate at 8-12 fps because the 2D that it's imposed on is at that speed. Berserk also suffers from really bad camerawork.
Ufotable usually does a wonderful job at this because they use their tools correctly. Where as other anime studios use 3D crowds that look stiff, or are some idol anime that they can't be bothered to properly animate the dances for (which unfortunately, Zombieland Saga falls under).
Code Lyoko: **sweats nervously**
Damn I remember that show XD. Ah childhood....
Boy do I miss that series
Damn. Now that’s nostalgic. Did you know it was a French show?
Oh man, I loved that show!
I miss my childhood
High School me: "2-D animation is outdated. There should be more 3D animation."
Adult me: "You know... seeing more 2-D animation in film doesn't hurt once in a while."
I definitely think it’s a matter of the genre and story you’re trying tell. While they are both animated, they are essentially different mediums similar to how live action is also a different medium. Sometimes 2D is better, sometimes CGI is better, and sometimes it doesn’t matter.
(For example I think Looney Toon level slapstick is usually best handled in 2D because everything is much more animated and less solid than 3D)
Fantastic Planet is a French film. Unfortunately, a film like this would probably never be made in America.
Kenny McCormick No, I underestimate American studio executives willingness to fund an animated movie that isn’t made for kids. I invite them to prove me wrong.
Honestly I love them both, I don’t want hand drawn to go away, but I hate it when people hate on cg because they prefer hand drawn.
Yeah, same.
I mean, I've been in a lot of art classes when going through school.
I'm not an artist but I love any form of art (both hand drawn and CG), except say when it's clunky and such (which that might be me especially bad CGI that I've seen for several years).
The animation of Wallace and Gromit trumps them both.
Does Claymation counts as CGI??
@@thefantasticretroreviewer3941 Nope
@@miguelmonteiro8735 Okay.
I was just alittle curious!
@@thefantasticretroreviewer3941 I think claymation and some forms of puppetry are subsets of stopmotion.
@@thefantasticretroreviewer3941 claymation is animation, cgi stands for "computer generated images"
When Disney stopped making hand-drawn animation, they basically abandoned their roots and essence.
Basically hand drawn animation was Boxer the Horse and Bob iger was Napoleon.
I guess Charlie Chaplin also abandoned his roots and essence when he started making "talkies".
I agree
Noah G they’re roots and essence was making entertainment that was both deep and entertaining for the whole family while also advancing the technology of animation, not simply 2d animation. Disney still has that as Disney continues to entertain families and also advances technology to the point they revive dead people
From another perspective, you could also say they grew and adapt to an audience that were getting bored of 2D, sometimes it's just how it is, they had to do what they did to survive. But now, since they already have a giant foothold in the entertainment industry, I wished that they would experiment with 2D again. Japanese animated movies are fine and good but I kind of also want the western animated ones to come back too
I love both traditional, cgi, and cel animation, so many great stories and characters shown in so many ways it’s extraordinary, I also but adult animation is growing in popularity and will one day get the respect it deserves.
Animation alumnus over here, had to watch this! Also I'm amazed you referenced Fantastic Planet! That movie was like an acid trip and I almost forgot about it. It's so rare to find other people that have even ever heard of it. But... it's not an American film. It's French.
Yeah it sure is a trip. Kind of like Planet Of The Apes meets Gulliver’s Travels but with copious amounts of acid.
The Fantastic Planet is Fench/Czechoslovakian. René Laloux was French and so was the script, but I'm pretty sure the animation studio and everything else was Czechoslovakian. Nonetheless, it's a great movie and it's awesome to see it come up in discussion. Laloux's other movies are great, but i think Time Masters kinda fell flat. Admittedly, I was only able to find Time Masters as an english dub (dubbing was pretty bad back then) so that may have played a part in my feelings towards it.
I haven’t actually seen any of his other films, but I really liked this one, especially the weird psychedelic art style.
@@marianatheschizoid5912 I'd say The Fantastic Planet is honestly his best. Gandahar is probobly the next best. Other than those two you'd probobly just wanna check out his short films, they're not long and they're pretty trippy. There are some other trippy animated movies out there like Heavy Metal from 1981 or pretty much anything by Ralph Bakshi (Bakshi is definitely NSFW though). If you're into the whole surrealist thing, then I'd say The Fantastic Planet is probobly one of the closest things to Salvadore Dali that you'll find in this period without going into anime (which is still great).
@Joe Horvath I’ve seen Ralph Bakshi’s Heavy Traffic and I liked it alright, though it’s def NSFW and wouldn’t be made today. I’ve also seen a Japanese one called Belladonna that had a very cool art style, like Harry Clarke meets Klimt meets Anime, but it’s also NSFW.
I honestly prefer 2D Because there’s more art to hand drawn animation.
...how?
Alice Smith 2D animations are like a moving painting.
there is more "art" to it? What does that even mean?
You missed a big point in this video.
"Art" has a lot of mediums, and no medium is more artistic than the other. It all depends on the meaning you are trying to convey.
Ironically, The CG Lion king, By looking more real, started feeling less real. But The live action thing at disney could work with other movies, Like treasure planet or Atlantis, Where a more realistic looking world could make the movies more immersive and the right choice of cast would just really make it worth watching... I think. What works in theory doesn't always work in practice, gotta keep that in mind.
I don’t really think any of that would make remakes of those movies any better than the other Disney remakes
And I do not want to see any of the aliens from Treasure Planet in CGI thank you and goodbye
I think one element that Nostalgia Critic didn't completely hit on is that cel animation has limitless potential to be anything it wants to be. CGI is largely constrained by looking real and that IS its limitation. There have been some attempts to loosen it up like The Incredibles, Tangled, and even Madagascar pushed back these limitations a little with more appealing characters, but, in the end, it all comes back to it feeling the need to have consistency or it looks strange. Cel animation, on the other hand, can go off in any direction it wants to and can still feel real. Can still be appealing. Can still hold itself together even if it's breaking all the rules. Myself, I miss hand drawn animation. It is perhaps America's greatest contribution to the world of art. What Disney accomplished in less than 10 years is almost miraculous and then there was another 60 years of lineage behind it that was tossed aside casually to focus on Chicken Little and Meet the Robinsons.
Also, underappreciated is Glen Keane's workshopping while making Tangled. Their work in trying to blend the strengths of cel animation with CGI did so much for Disney.
And, just to say it, CGI was shackled for so many years by all the stupid Shrek clones. It took them a long time to figure out how to be more than celebrity voices and gags that adults get.
Well, the thing is 3D as it’s name says. Is limited by the laws of our 3 dimensions, so if it breaks those rules, it falls apart. Meanwhile 2D doesn’t have those limitations, we can see this work perfectly in escher’s impossible drawings. Escher’s staircases break all laws of logic, confuse us, but they feel real even if our brain tells us it’s impossible, because even though they can exist in our 3D world, they can exist in a 2D one.
You understand of course, that even 2D animation this days are often done on top of the 3d models? Even recent brilliant Klaus, which is seemingly 2D drawn incorporated a lot of 3D in almost every scene.
This division and limits of 2D or 3D is just a stigma and nothing more.
@@bohdan_lvov Myself, I'm somewhat confused as to what the point of Klaus was. It's a cel-animated movie that was painstakingly made to look like a CGI movie via a multitude of effects. I'm fairly sure the movie could have looked almost the same if they'd done it in CGI from the start and that it would have been much easier.
In choosing to make the movie look CGI, they largely gave it the same set of physical limitations that I mentioned above.
Then there's the opposite in films like Paperman which uses CGI to make animation that looks like a cel-animated. And while I loved Paperman as a short (the best of the shorts that Disney has been released since Walt was alive), it makes me scratch my head and wonder why they would do that when you could make almost exactly the same artistic effect by hand drawing the whole thing. And, on top of it, you import some of CGI's limitations. I believe it was an experiment that stemmed from Tangled's workshopping of how to bring some of the charm of cel animation into Disney's CGI animation.
Anyway, I don't see the difference as one of stigma. The two are very distinct in what they do well and what they have trouble with. I don't mind cel animation incorporating CGI effects (though the early Renaissance CGI looked jarring even in the 90s). Tarzan did amazing things aided by background technology that couldn't have been done in previous eras and it enhanced the possibilities instead of limiting them. However, I don't think Tarzan could have ever been as dynamic if the character wasn't rendered in traditional cel work.
Why does everyone always forget that Dinosaur, not Chicken Little, is Disneymation's first 3D animovie? Technically, lt's Wreck-It Ralph, due to how long lt was in production.
@@nspcrazy1122 I don't believe anyone said Chicken Little was first.
"Animation is for kids" when anime like JoJo's Bizarre Adventure desensitizes you to bloody violence
No kidding! Adding to JoJo:
-Death Note
-Berserk
-Elfen Lied
-Attack on Titan
-Hellsing
-Goblin Slayer
-Tokyo Ghoul
**maniacal laughter as "animation for kids" causes said kids severe trauma**
Pawar L.O.S. I would like to interject by saying this when it comes to Japanese animation: Yes, many people who think of anime, mainly think of it being more adult oriented. While that’s true, it wasn’t always the case.
Even in Japan, animation in the very beginnings were also seen as “kids” stuff. Many series that came out in the late 50s to early 60s were very family friendly. There wasn’t any anime at the time that was geared towards a more adult audience.... that is until Lupin the 3rd came out. Many people seem to never realized that Lupin was the first series to be more geared towards an adult audience and from that point, other anime series started to follow suit at a steady pace. That didn’t really kick off until the late 80s IMO.
@@purpleheart3000 i watched these as a kid. they are for kids except berserk
jojo is for kids. like comone blood and violence doesn't make it more adult. heavy themes and ideas is what usually makes a show more adult like devilman crybaby. using the violec for something other than violence
Please guys, all those pale in comparison to happy tree friends (in terms of gore that is).
now im just remembering the phineas and ferb movie.
"In glorious 2D!"
Honestly, either one works with their own pros and cons, but its dumb to abandon 2D animation because of a dogma that every 2D film is a bad film. If the animation is good but the writing is bad, it isn't because it was 2D that it failed, it failed because of horrible writing. Let me ask a fair question; Out all the poorly received 2D disney films did anyone actually have a problem with the animation/art itself or was it the story?
A key factor to take in is “which ages better”
Both have their cons in that department.
Has a old 3D series like Beast Wars aged well at all?
Doug Fantastic Planet is a French film, not an American film.
I really like these videos where Doug focuses on a topic instead of a movie, they're pretty interesting!
It’s kind of why I wish he returned with the Editorials. He does bring an insight on the topic that it’s quite fascinating.
If you take a look at ancient Japanese arts, you can see where their love of the simple and the complex are ingrained in their culture. Take, for example, the simple beauty of ikebana, also known as Kado which means “way of flowers.” Ikebana’s beauty is in taking a few flowers or plants, and maybe a twig or two, and arranging them in a certain way. In contrast, you have the Japanese tea ceremony, which, while the point of the ceremony is to celebrate simplicity, is a complex undertaking that takes weeks to properly prepare. With that kind of cultural background, is it any wonder that anime, with the complex stories and simple hand drawn animation, is popular to this day?
What I like about CGI over hand drawn is that when you have set models and enviroments, the characters and enviroments are more consistent and give more of a sense of things existing.
That said I LOVE when things are stylized and I feel you can get away with great stylization with hand draw/2D animation.
Disney created a short called “Get a horse “
It beautifully combines 3D and 2d animation to make a amazingly corigraft short
Edit: this is the most likes I have ever gotten
Thank you guys so much
Now this, I can agree with.
i remember that. it was a great tribute to mickey with a lovely style and funny comedy
Fun fact: Disney was using CGI suplement from middle of the 90's. And one of reasons of "Disney magic" was heavy use of post processing and deliberate precise overexposure to gain pure white color. So it is hilarious when they are used as example of true "hand drew" animation.
This isn't as good as an example but Day and Night (a Pixar short) works too
This is probably one of your best editorial you've done in a while. Not slamming down on others but I love it when you do these editorials! Very inspiring and thought provoking!
Doug: "CG or Hand-drawn, which one is better?"
Clip shows "your name"
me: Ok, I think we are done here...
Q - CG vs hand drown animation
A - Stop Motion.
Love
Glad I’m not the only one with that opinion.
I miss 2d animated movies. It is extremely rare to find any theatrical films in that style.
Spider-Verse....?
bigevilworldwide1 cg still takes forever to make especially when it comes to making all the models and render times. It isn’t about the time it takes but what makes the most money
@@sonicmania6753 That looked 3D 90% of the time, I still loved the style though.
@@mattwolf7698 Oh yeah, the style is fantastic, hands down.
Nah there's plenty of Japanese
I'm surprised that Doug didn't point out this huge important difference between 2d hand-drawn animation and 3d animation, which proves that 2D hand-drawn animation still holds up and deserves to remain in cinemas till this day. That difference is that 2D hand-drawn animation is way more artistic looking than 3D animation. 2D animation offers the quality of an exquisite art gallery coming to life all around us, while 3D animation quality appears closer to being realistic/live-action than artistic. And the background art in 2D animation is very stunning and has lots of well-drawn/well-painted scenery to offer with endless exquisite details as well, while 3D animation can't offer those kinds of sceneries. All 3D animation offers is more 3D animation in the background. All the details, including minor ones, in 2D animation are especially beautiful and stand out in 1080p HD quality.
The reason I like 2D animation more than 3D animation is because 2D animation looks more artistic, while 3D animation looks more realistic and less artistic. 2D animation is like a nice break from reality, while 3D animation doesn't have that feel. 2D animation is like watching a magical painting coming to life in front of you, while 3D animation doesn't have that feel. And yes, we still have American cartoon shows with 2D animation, but they're mostly cheap looking and they don't even have the amazing quality and detail that 2D animated Disney movies and Don Bluth movies have.
As an artist I have grown up watching and studying animation both 2D and 3D. I've dabbled in both and know how each can be powerful, but also weak. When it comes down to it the dimension you use has just become apart of the "style." No different than making a character cartoonish or realistic, it's more of "How will the story benefit from being told in a 2D world vs a 3D world."
I feel like if American animation really wanted to go somewhere, they'd need to make an adult animated movie that's NOT a comedy. The problem as I see it isn't that one type of animation is used over the other but that American animation is divided into two main categories in the public consensus. 'for children' animation, and 'adult comedy' animation.
You're right. I like Sausage Party, but even I know for a fact it's gonna be extremely dated. We need more categories for adult animation that isn't just crude content. More American Pop, less Hell and Back.
I honestly feel like there could be so many more iconic films if studios didn’t give up on hand drawn animation. The detail put into just panning the camera away from a character in a hand drawn film is just beautiful. The effort put into each frame feels more clear compared to CG animation in my opinion.
They did that in the 90's. Most 2D animation nowadays (not flash but actual high quality stuff) is assembled on PC's on software similar to Photoshop.
"Fantastic Planet" isn't american. It's french.
Didn't he say western
@@SamyulDavis 02:50
I like both 2D and CG, honestly. As Doug said there’s strengths and weaknesses to both, but for me it just comes down to story, design, and general pleasantness/entertainment.
That said, I’m surprised he didn’t bring up How To Train Your Dragon as a point for CG. The detailing in those movies like textures, expressions, movement, etc is so captivating and it’s amazing how good the first one looks for 2010 and got better in detail with each installment. The major crown for HTTYD is how DreamWorks can mimic flying by adjusting the angles, wind movements, clothes rippling, etc so it feels real. Never saw the first one in theaters, but just watching ”Test Flight” on TV or my laptop gives me a rush. Not to mention the final battle when Hiccup and Toothless are zipping through the air and flames consume them ad they fall. Just not sure if 2D could have captured such an impact so well.
But then there’s Coraline stop motion animation which is a masterpiece work of art
I believe KLAUS the Christmas special will bring back 2D animation.
I just wanna ask this: Doesn't anyone ever get bored of watching CGI films? I sure have. Now, don't get me wrong, I think they're cool looking, but I often get really bored of how many there are these days. However, 2D animation like this is what I love most about animators and animation! It always seems to inspire me to try drawing something. And if there's one thing I know, it's that with animation, CG or not, you can present literally anything!!
Update: I've seen the error of my ways. Both mediums are great, I guess I'm just outta touch.
To be fair, that attitude was also how a lot of audiences felt with 2D animated films back when 3D animation started to become popular. I think the real problem isn’t so much the mediums themselves, but rather the lack of ambition to really think outside the box - whether it’s over-relying on similar art styles, overused character design tropes, samey lighting and environments, etc.
@@geoffreyrichards6079
Okay that's fair. EXTREMELY valid. Sorry.
3D animation doesn’t age as well as 2D animation does, especially in video games. I mean, which games still hold up in visuals? “Ocarina of Time” or “A Link to the Past”?
Neither have held up particularly well since A Link to the Past uses computer-generated sprite animation. A better comparison would be to point out that Wind Waker, which used traditional cel-shading and a mix of 2D and 3D to create an animation like that out of a Ghibi anime, has aged far better than the "realistic" Twilight Princess, which released 3 years later.
I think burnout 3 and the original SWB2 both hold up pretty well.
@@matthewmuir8884 ?
What about Windwaker? Its cartoony style actually benefits the game as it is not subject to the test of time, graphically speaking. Compare that to something like Twilight Princess that tried to go for the more realistic look, and thus has made it a time capsule game in the scope of 3D.
@@scottchaison1001 Why the question mark? What did I say that was confusing?
Hand drawn animation is better because it gives the characters more expressions and allows them to show us their emotions ;)
With that I would like to watch any movie by Pixar and tell me that there's no emotions in these characters
I personally think there is disadvantages and advantages for both mediums. One of my favorite anime (Beastars) is CG and it looks amazing and I love the animation. Also another great CG anime is Land Of The Lustrous which has really impressive CG fight scenes. And a really good anime that is 2D and has amazing animation in Mob Psycho 100! I feel like CG is cool but it’s really easy for it to look off or weird from being under rendered or over rendered and also things feeling stiff. But I also love 2D animation and the majority of my favorite animated series are 2D and I personally like the look of it a bit more. Also 2D is able to make more exaggerated things which make it feel more alive like smear frames, squash and stretch. 3D can also look easily dated after a long time and 2D can look good and not dated for a longer amount of time. And 3D has a harder time with doing squash and stretch and smear frames because it tried to be more realistic and doing the smear frames might make the characters look off model and weird. I do know more about 2D then 3D because I have read a good book on animation and know a bit of the basics. I think both mediums have advantages and disadvantages and are harder in different ways.
If there are two things that 2d does better than Cgi is Fantasy and Horror. Good examples of Fantasy are Aladdin and Spirited Away. For Horror its Scooby Doo Zombie Island.
One of the great things about the first spongebob movie was it felt like an episode and they were able to keep that tone even above the sea. Then the 2nd movie ruined it. And now the 3rd just completely threw away everything for CGI.
I'd say one issue might be something Critic mentioned in his last dark toon: off-model versus on-model. With CG, you're pretty much always on-model. It's one single model that you move about as you wish. The result is that even the best frankly look like dolls to me. With hand-drawn on the other hand, there is absolutely no limit to how close or far from your main model you need to be. The result is the storyboard drawings of characters look far better and more vibrant to me than the CG characters put on screen. The drawings are far from the sort of off-model nonsense you see in things like Ren & Stimpy or Looney Tunes, but it's still pushing past the hard model in ways that make it more expressive and lively. Of course this can have noticeable problems sometimes. As an anime watcher, there are characteristics I can't help but notice seem eternally inconsistent. Still, they remain much more alive to me than CG models.
Which is why many movies like Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Captain Underpants and Hotel Transylvania were pretty clever in making their models so flexible they can actualy go off-model and look like Brad Bird's style.
?
This was really well put, I really think you nailed why 2d can feel far more expressive.
Fun fact: The first animated movie wasn't made in the USA was made in Argentina in 1917 by Quirino Cristiani and was called "El Apostol" which was a political satire.
Also, Fantastic Planet is not an american movie, is a French-Czech Movie.
It just occured to me I've recently watched series of both types of animation:
"Avatar the Last Airbender", "Legend of Korra" and "Teen Titans" on the side of 2D,
"Star Wars the Clone Wars" (without season 7) and "Miraculous" on the side of 3D.
You should check Wakfu to see on the Flash side, its actualy a VERY solid Flash cartoon based on an MMO of same name (and animated by the same company) with some pretty good animation.
@@MrKlausbaudelaire isn't flash also 2D?
@@DeathKitta its too unique since it also works with models like 3D, but flat liker 2D.
When the Coronavirus is over, you should dedicate a month to yourself watching Adam Sandler movies you haven't reviewed yet, and call it "Sandler Month."
We soooo need a Sandler month once the virus is over and Doug can work with Malcolm and Tamara again.
rckblzr12 Agreed.
To the Nostalgia Critic: Evidently, there's a lot of people here (from what I read in the comments) that seem to disagree with you, and I happen to be one of them. I firmly believe that hand-drawn animation is leaps and bounds better than the CGI crap that's in Hollywood right now. Hand-drawn animation gives us a way to escape our reality for a while, instead of shoving reality in our faces the way CGI does. As one commenter noted, if you're going to make a realistic film, do it in live action. It's cheaper and it doesn't risk getting into the uncanny valley. Once CGI does that, all it does is distract us. Also, CGI doesn't age well over time, unlike hand-drawn animation which has a timeless quality to it. Oh, and I feel that I need to talk about how the CGI industry in Hollywood has been LOSING money (WAY before this whole Coronavirus thing, meaning for years now). With the exception of Disney (until recently, that is) studios like Dreamworks or Blue Sky and even Pixar have been losing money hand over fist with their CGI offerings. Pixar's not making the money it used to with it's CGI films. These studios are over-saturating the market with (relatively) cheap CGI films that are pretty quick to make. The creators of these films are hoping that people will still flock to CGI movies because they'll still have the mindset of "OH, MY GOD!!! IT'S CG!!! IT'S SO REAL!!! Just like they did back when CGI first came out. Because the majority of CGI films are made so (relatively) cheaply AND THEY'RE TIMED TO EXACTLY come out RIGHT WHEN THEY HAVE NO OTHER COMPETITION, these have been the reasons that recent CGI films have made any money at all. Don't you think that the studios in Hollywood KNOW that CGI isn't nearly as profitable as it once was? OF COURSE they do. Just to let you know, I am an animator, and I have been keeping a very close eye on the animation industry in Hollywood for a long time. The problem (in my opinion) is that people are getting bored with seeing the same CGI stuff over and over again. That's the problem with over-saturation. Yes, the studios may be putting tons of CGI movies in the theaters for people to see, but at the same time, the studios are also making it easier and easier for movie-goers to not only get bored with those movies, but to also pick out more and more of CGI's flaws. Also, there's really little attention given to creating original, compelling stories or characters for CG movies. These movies seem almost like they're churned out on an assembly line. I would appreciate that if you do another review of CGI vs. hand-drawn animation you may want to take some of these points into consideration.
While I appreciate your points amd how respectful you are I must respectfully disagree. I honestly think Doug has a good grasp on what makes both of these methods great.
I grew up watching both. My favorite shows were usually 2D while many films I watched were 3D. Pixar helped revolutionize the art and other studios like DreamWorks started to improve too.
If I had to choose one I'd most likely pick 2D. But I don't believe that 3D is that much worse. As Doug pointed out the worst of 2D is better than the worst of 3D. But considering 3D animation has produced some amazing films and shows over tge years I believe there always should be a place for it.
Adam Vialpando 👍👍👍
Disagree with what? Doug didn't make a definitive verdict on one being better than the other. He just explained how each has its own strengths and weaknesses which is true.
Skimming over your points, I feel like the issues with CG you mentioned are more issues with modern Moviemaking. The points about movies being churned out, or people getting tired of the same CG stuff over and over again, those could also be said if 2D was still dominant. It's not CG that's causing these issues, but the Hollywood environment.
I like your content. That is all.
Thanks for the nice comment!
Movies,Games, and me,OH MY! ! 😂😂😂
Movies,Games, and me,OH MY! ! I like your comment. That is all.
Well said sir
Nah, 4-D animation is where it’s at.
*gets sucked into black hole as reality collapses in on itself*
Actually every animation is 4D. But that is mostly semantic.
Now that's what I call engaging!
@@user-sf8du1iv9e Every time I watch 4D animation it SUCKS ME IN
I prefer 1-D animation, personally.
I mean, it's impossible to actually see, but I still enjoy it.
Honestly my favourite style is the 2D/3D hybrid. Kind of like what Disney and DreamWorks did in the late 90s/early 2000s. Movies like the Prince of Egypt, Spirit, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, Road to El Dorado, Treasure Planet and Brother Bear. Dunno why I just think outside of Miyazaki/Shinkai films it's the style I find the cleanest and most appealing to look at
I'm on the same boat. That style of animation deserves more recognition. Imagine how it'd look with today's technology.
Good hand drawn animation has a more natural earthy feel to it, while CG is clean polished vision. They both great in their own way as long as you're willing to put the work in.
Exactly we’ll put
That’s the problem with this video. He showed The Simpsons as a “traditional” animation, but it’s not. The Simpsons is CG. It’s digital Ink and paint and animated on a computer. Compare that with The Simpsons in 1993. In 1993 It’s warm and inviting and sometimes they go off model yet it adds to the charm. The Simpsons today is much too bright and shiny and sterile looking. It has no soul, and I’m not just talking about the writing. The Simpsons use to be done on traditional cel animation with actual ink & paint. But not anymore. It’s all CG. Think of Batman The Animated Series. Or Animaniacs or Gargoyles. All those shows wouldn’t have near the charm or beauty to them if they were made today. Most cartoons made today have that cheap “Teen Titans Go” FLASH animation style, like the Ducktales reboot. Batman The Animated Series has the beautiful aesthetic it did because it was animated on black background paper. Well paper isn’t used at all anymore. It’s all done on a tablet on a computer. All of it. Cel animation and traditional ink & paint is a dead art form and the world is a lesser place for it. I miss that old aesthetic. Disney started digital ink & Paint in the early ‘90s. In my opinion, while the films themselves are great, something was lost. The human touch. Sure the colours were sharp and brilliant. But it lost the soul, the warmth, of something you’d see in Little Mermaid or The Great Mouse Detective. I don’t know if there is such a thing as non CG animation anymore. The economics of it are just vastly less expensive
He really seems to talk in circles about this without offering much insight. A bit of the tunnel vision. One of the biggest differences between 2D and 3D, that 2D wins out on, is energy. 3D animations have set dimensions on their models, so there's a limit to what can be done. 2D models have no upper limit to the amount of energy they can have on screen, because they're not confined to rules of their reality. 2D provides an incredible variety of experiences because the 3rd dimension is filled by imagination.
3D is fully capable of breaking those limits just like 2D though. Arc System Works' animation in games like Dragon Ball Fighterz use a lot of camera tricks and model warping to give the models 2D animation-like energy and unrealistic dimensions. It can take some more work in certain aspects, remolding those models for those shots rather than using and merely posing the same model, but it can absolutely be done. It's by no means an inherent limitation of the medium.
"talk in circle"
What are you talking about? His best argument is in 10:05, where 3D may allows more details, but each details from 2D has a bigger emotional responce
This argument isn’t really valid anymore, cgi is now just as good at squash and stretch
I love the beauty of hand-drawn animation because, as said, even still characters, as long as something is like in reality, can still feel real, and, no matter the look, it all will look more interesting and make me want to see more. 2D has become something of a now under appreciated art form and 3D has seemed to be overused, being just about everywhere and kids will not have the same experience we had when seeing the hand drawn films.