where is animation now?

[Starlioness]

this question has been bugging me for a while.. I remeber a poll here that said the seventies was the worst decade for animation. and I know Full-length Disney features( that were not shorts bunched together ) were common in the 40's during the war.. it seemed like hard times.. now that we're in the CGI age.. are we reverting back to when animated movies were made less frequently? I know Disney took about 3 or 4 years to make a feature up until Great Mouse Detective.. and I know people are saying 2D isn't dead. but I wonder if we'll have to wait at least a couple years for a 2D or any other type of animated feature (aside from Anime and CGI) what I'm basically saying is .. are we in the Dark age of animation? or are we in limbo? so confused..:sad: :confused:


one more thing .. Curious George is the Last 2-D feature from any american studio right? ( not the counting the like of Spongebob Squarepants and other T.V movies) .

[Prism]

While it does look grim for traditional 2D animation, it's nowhere near as bad as the 70s. True it seems that theatrical features are more then likely going to be 3D CGI while more network series are heading towards Flash animation but then again traditional cell animation will never totally die out. Megas XLR,W.I.T.C.H,WINX and several other new shows are in the traditional 2D sense and eventually there will be another revival. Animation always makes a comeback.

[Classic Speedy]

In terms of theatrical films, maybe. But definitely not when it comes to TV.

[Eddie G.]

I think that we'll see things balance out in due time. At one point CGI effects were replacing traditional FX, however things seem to be balancing out right now. A lot of people are realizing that CGI is flawed and cannot fully replace the old ways. Eventually people will realize the same thing about CG animation, while it can create some great animation (Toy Story, Shrek, Beast Wars) however it just can't do what 2D animation does. Eventually things will balance out however I do feel bad for people who want to get into animation in the next few years.

[Spongebrain2.0]

Walt Disney himself, almost closed down the animation studios after a string of "flops" in the 50's (Sleeping Beauty), but animation revived in the 60's with (101 Dalmations) Then died again in the 80's, but then lived on again with "The Little Mermaid"

[Dudley]

Eventually people will realize the same thing about CG animation, while it can create some great animation (Toy Story, Shrek, Beast Wars) however it just can't do what 2D animation does.
Though I'm slightly reluctant on taking the 3D side,
what can 2D do that 3D can't do?

[Prism]

I may be wrong but isn't it proven that CGI can't do a fraction of what 2D animation can do? CGI is a novelty to moviegoers which gave the producers the wrong impression that traditional animation is worthless. So that means that one day it'll make a comeback. Hey it might even be a good thing, because then smaller studios might get the chance to shine.

[Behonkiss]

I don't know. I've had a nagging feeling that the current situation of 2D theatrical animation is going to stay this way. Can you name a CG film within the past three years that hasn't bombed?

[Dudley]

I don't know. I've had a nagging feeling that the current situation of 2D theatrical animation is going to stay this way. Can you name a CG film within the past three years that hasn't bombed?
Well, there was Disney's Dinosaur.
Any movie you don't make a profit from I consider a bomb.

[Roman Legion]

Traditional animation (particularly in the US) will eventually rebound. When and how both remain to be seen. Could be a few years... could be a decade or longer, but it'll happen. Stop-motion didn't kill 2D animation, and neither will 3D CG animation.


I think that we'll see things balance out in due time. At one point CGI effects were replacing traditional FX, however things seem to be balancing out right now. A lot of people are realizing that CGI is flawed and cannot fully replace the old ways.

How is CGI flawed? The technology is there to pull off any scene perfectly; the only limiting factors are time, money, and talent. The tech's advancement also shows no sign of slowing, constantly reducing its own limiting factors.

The flaw is not CGI, which is merely another tool. The flaw is with people using CGI in place of traditional effects where the time, money, and talent do not exist to get equal or better results. There will always be areas that are better left to traditional effects, but that's not due to any inherent flaws in CGI itself.


Eventually people will realize the same thing about CG animation, while it can create some great animation (Toy Story, Shrek, Beast Wars) however it just can't do what 2D animation does. Eventually things will balance out however I do feel bad for people who want to get into animation in the next few years.

True, true.


I may be wrong but isn't it proven that CGI can't do a fraction of what 2D animation can do?

Yes... and no... there will be a time when CGI can match hand drawn animation. It'll happen. However, I don't see why anyone would really want to fully replace traditional 2D animation with faked 2D. Just as it makes more sense to simply film live actors than to completely replace them with CG models, it will make more sense to hand-animate 2D animation than to waste time simulating it. Furthermore, I doubt anyone will ever place as much care as some do with traditional animation into 2D faked with 3D CG...

--Romey

[MichJackFans]

I'd definitely have to go with CGI as far as what I prefer to watch, visually. CGI is capable of rendering just a whole truck-load of detail in one shot, but without the talent to effectively use those tools, you may as well be watching some old H/B toons from the 70's.

The last time I saw what I would term as 'unity' in an animated series, wherein the writers, animators, and voice actors were all 'on the same page', was in the Beast Wars series. Not only was the writing good, with plots and subplots such to keep your interest, but the character development was as good as any live television show. Rhinox with his plant, the animosity between Rattrap and Dinobot. Hard to make everything work without the talent.

[Juu-kuchi]

Well, there was Disney's Dinosaur.
Any movie you don't make a profit from I consider a bomb.
It was like so cool the first trailer or something, but then after it was found out that they SPOKE, then it all went to hell.

We're in a lull in animation, where technology seems more important than story-telling. Sure they still feel story-telling is important, but CG animation will perhaps bring about an age similar to the failing of 2-d in the theaters. Then 2-d will be back again (hopefully), and show you don't need CG to be good.

[Behonkiss]

Traditional animation (particularly in the US) will eventually rebound. When and how both remain to be seen. Could be a few years... could be a decade or longer, but it'll happen. Stop-motion didn't kill 2D animation, and neither will 3D CG animation.When did stop-motion ever threaten 2D? Nightmare Before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach were the only big-budget stop-motion films, and neither were runaway hits.

[Terrence Briggs]

We might be on the cusp of another boom in TV animation. Ever since Nickelodeon and KWB changed the way animation was sold in this country, future developers won't have to worry about syndication limbo, NATPE clearances, or "will my show air while kids are in school?" nonsense. Narrowcasting is forcing cable channels to take more risks, as Cartoon Network did with its lineups, so now they're trying to compete with Nickelodeon. ABC Family is still in the process of tweaking their lineup, and eventually they'll have to produce some new material to compete.

Personally, I believe free TV animation's been in and out of a valley since 1997, when the syndicated market dried up. Cable only became watchable for me when the anime imports came rolling in, even thought most of them weren't very good.

On the feature film end of things, Disney is doomed until they can produce another film people want to see. Fox is only alive as long as the next CGI film from Blue Sky makes money. Shrek 2 will determine how many risks Dreamworks can take creatively in the near future (if it bombs, they're doomed).

Warner Bros. might be dead, though Cartoon Network and KWB will keep their animation divisions afloat.

Nickelodeon might survive on D2V movies and other feture film cheapies.

[Roman Legion]

When did stop-motion ever threaten 2D?

It didn't. That's the point.


Nightmare Before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach were the only big-budget stop-motion films, and neither were runaway hits.

3D CGI is, ultimately, the successor to stop-motion. The way it's being used in animated films isn't all that visually far off from stop-motion, either. There's certainly far more flexibility in terms of what CGI can do, but in the end, a realistic model is a realistic model no matter how you create it.

Right now, CGI is still riding the wave of novelty in the world of animation, but that will wear off. Audiences are already becoming more picky about the use of CG in live action films, with many no longer being satisfied to simply be "wowed" by "realistic" effects, and the same will eventually happen in animation.

--Romey

[Baltofan]

What about the next CGI movies like The Incredibles and Chicken Little, will they ever beat Finding Nemo's box office and DVD sale records?