Will 2D animation die?

Post by **CaptainJasHook** » February 26th, 2005, 1:34 pm

Will 3D take over? Have we seen the last of 2D art in film?

Post by **Christian** » February 26th, 2005, 2:17 pm

Post by **PatrickvD** » February 26th, 2005, 2:27 pm

double no

Post by **CaptainJasHook** » February 26th, 2005, 3:03 pm

Oh, come on! In 50 years, you're gonna tell me that 2D won't be dead!?

We'll still get a few films in the future, but it's gonna be gone before we know it.

Here's a question: do you think Disney Animation will do another 2D feature film (as opposed to a DTV cheapquel)?

Post by **Ben** » February 26th, 2005, 4:06 pm

Yes.

2D will be "revived" as an "old age" artform somewhere down the line.

All it will take is a slew of CGI busts and someone to say "hey, why don't we make 'em like they did with Mickey Mouse/Aladdin/Lion King/Sinbad..." (okay, well maybe not the Sinbad one).

2D isn't really dead anyway. It's just that their parents have forgotten it. It'll go out - independently - and bring home the bacon on its own, and then be welcomed back with open arms!

Post by **Plightyear** » February 26th, 2005, 4:26 pm

Message deleted

Post by **Christian** » February 26th, 2005, 9:30 pm

The error lies in thinking that 3D has "replaced" 2D. The error will be cleared up when people realize they are two different techniques, and whatever technique is best for the story at hand is the one that should be applied. I went to both special screenings of The Incredibles (a computer animated feature . . . obviously) and at each one everybody there enjoyed it immensely but also gave rousing rounds of applause when both Pete Docter and Brad Bird said in effect, "The notion that 2D traditional animation is dead is absurd," and "Everybody at Pixar wants to see more 2D films and nobody at Pixar thinks if a film fails that it's because it wasn't done in 3D."

Eisner said that it had become like black and white films.

What Eisner didn't understand is that when the early Disney artists were working on the old black and white stuff like Steamboat Willie they probably hoped that some day they could do it in color (no, I'm not saying the B&W stuff should be colorized now) but when they could do it in color they very likely were NOT thinking, "Gee, I sure wish I could animate in a way that didn't involve drawing with my hands and ink and pen and paper. I hope one day a computer can do it all for me."

Post by **AniMan** » February 28th, 2005, 2:46 pm

Traditional 2D animation is not dead, nor will it ever be. Sure, Disney is closing up their traditional animation division, but let's not forget, Disney is not the only show in town. Even if all the big U.S. studios back away from traditional animation, many of the other countries out there, like Japan, will still continue to do them. Remember Spirited Away? How about The Triplets of Belleville? Films like these will continue to be made because there will always be someone out there with a creative mind and there will always be an audience out there for it. Pixar, a company renowned for its CG animation, have themselves adamantly said that 2D is not dead. It is a tool, like computer animation, to tell the story. The problem with Disney right now is that they aren't seeing the real reason why so many of their recent hand-drawn animated films flopped: the stories were weak or, quite frankly, simply sucked. But I believe one day they will realize that the problem wasn't a waning interest in and rejection of 2D but their own shortcomings in storytelling and they'll return to their roots.

So, NO, 2D animation IS NOT DEAD!

Post by **Kaszubas** » February 28th, 2005, 3:57 pm

Example 1:
Animatrix along with original Matrix was the best piece of film material on whole Matrix stuff. 9 great episodes - little animation masterpiceces. Only one of them was totally CGI short (Final Flight of the Osiris) and IMHO that was the weakest part (mainly storywise but emotionally also) of Animatrix.
Example 2:
Kill Bill - I cannot imagine what kind of cg animation would fit better in the story line and blend both stylitically and emotionally with live action footage better than this exceptional piece of anime made by Production I.G. ...

Example 3: Miyazaki films. Mamoru Oshi films.

Example 4: Tripplets of Belleville.

etc. etc.

It's obvious that some certain kind of graphical stylization is not achievable in CGI. Living strokes, individual drawing style and formal freedom is exclusivelly reserved for calasical 2d hand drawn animation. Also exclusive look&feel of flash based animation (like Gendy Tartakowsky's movies) and stop motion films (Aardman, Burton) is unlikely possible to achieve with CGI.

CGI is growing in power -it's relatively cheap and could be very spectacular. but there is always place for other techniques next to CGI. 3d cannot express everything

Post by **askmike1** » February 28th, 2005, 6:36 pm

Traditional animation is not dead right now, but it would not be right to say it will be around forever. Nothing gold can stay. 50 years from now it may or may not still exist. However, for now 2D animation lives in Direct to DVDs (such as Mickey's Three Musketeers and Lion King 1 1/2).

Everyone blames Disney for not making 2D Feature films, but other studios, such as Dreamworks and Pixar, are equally at fault. Yes, Pixar...almighty Pixar. Do you see them making a traditional animation department? No, and not because 'they haven't made the right story,' it's because they too know that it would bomb, and their record can't take a bomb now.

Let's take the quote from Brad Bird "And if they felt there was a story better told hand-drawn, I don't think the fact they are know for computer animation would stop them." If Bird says it, everyone is like 'oh I trust that Pixar would if the right story came along'. But if Micahel Eisner says that same phrase (and he has), people jump all over him saying he is a lier (and people have).

Post by **ShyViolet** » February 28th, 2005, 6:55 pm

Everyone blames Disney for not making 2D Feature films, but other studios, such as Dreamworks and Pixar, are equally at fault. Yes, Pixar...almighty Pixar. Do you see them making a traditional animation department? No, and not because 'they haven't made the right story,' it's because they too know that it would bomb, and their record can't take a bomb now.

I agree with Mike. Pixar has not made one 2d film, but it's Disney and DreamWorks, who have (and still are) making them who are the villains.

People do jump all over Eisner for saying that, when you don't know that Disney might very well go back to 2d f it served the story.
People do the same thing to Katzenberg at DW, who has tried very hard to preserve 2d animation with "tradigital" technology and HAS said that he would go back to it if it served the story. Mike is right--nobody ever blames Pixar.

And I'm not trying to be down on Brad Bird or anything but he was the one who said awful things about Sinbad last year, a 2d film. So much for supporting 2d animation.

Post by **Kaszubas** » February 28th, 2005, 7:18 pm

There is apparent difference between establishing new way of making movies and going this way (like Pixar did) and destroing its own roots (like Disney is doing now). This is why "everyone" blames Disney, not Pixar

Do You suggest that creating something new is equally worth to blame as destroing roots and tradition when there is no clear message that this is the only way to achieve success ? Well - nice theory...

Post by **Christian** » February 28th, 2005, 8:48 pm

If Pixar made a 2D film that was a hit then all the other studios would be scrambling to set up 2D production again.

Post by **AniMan** » March 1st, 2005, 1:01 am

Damn, why do so many of you go on the defensive against Pixar? I guess it easier to go after whoever is successful at the time

Look, it's like I said. Disney will come around again, and I know you will see them do traditional animation again. But saying Pixar is partly to blame for the alleged demise of 2D is a crock! They simply pioneered a new way to tell a story. New tools. Nothing wrong with that. And Pixar is still a relatively new kid on the block. You don't know that they won't do a 2D film in the future. And by the way, Eisner said what he said. His words. He thinks 2D is done. I know it's not. I am not alone.

Post by **AniMan** » March 1st, 2005, 1:12 am

askmike1 wrote:Everyone blames Disney for not making 2D Feature films, but other studios, such as Dreamworks and Pixar, are equally at fault. Yes, Pixar...almighty Pixar. Do you see them making a traditional animation department? No, and not because 'they haven't made the right story,' it's because they too know that it would bomb, and their record can't take a bomb now.

"They know it would bomb, and their record can't take a bomb now"?

What in the world are you talking about? You do realize they have made over a billion dollars, yes, OVER A BILLION, since their first big film, Toy Story?
Sorry, but your statement just sounds an awful lot like sour grapes to me

If they flop with CARS it certainly won't hurt them too badly. Everyone of these studios has a flop now and then. They will eventually, I suppose. Maybe. Maybe not.