2D animation: more impressive?

[Dudley]

After thinking about it, I noticed that when I watch a 2D animated movie, I'm more impressed by visual outcome, then that of a CGI movie.

Do you feel the same way?

[Anniemaniac]

same with me. 2D movies (especially disney movies) always impressed me, even when i was a kid. the ONLY CGI movie thats impressed me has been toy story. the rest have failed.

imo 2D IS move impressive than 3D anyways. im sure some people will disagree with me on this but 3D is really only a case of pressin a few buttons i think, i know more goes into it than that obviously but still, thats what it seems like. im more impressed by 2D because someone actually DREW it, the entire film! and thats far move impressive than creating an entire film on a computer.

[Sr.Infierno]

I feel the exact same way. When you see something like Howl's Moving Castle, you appreciate the work that was put into it more then something like, well, Doogal

[MonkeyFunk]

I feel the exact same way. When you see something like Howl's Moving Castle, you appreciate the work that was put into it more then something like, well, Doogal

By the same token, I can also appreciate The Incredibles more than a Filmation movie ;)

[Wanted]

It all depends how much effort was put into the storyline and the animation. Most often, the two-dimensional films will be more impressive, because they're not mass-produced like CGI movies are nowadays. Then again, there is today's share of horrible two-dimensional films... wait, no there isn't.

But, in general (and, not just movies), I can't judge a show on its medium. That's just like choosing Sprite over 7up because you like white caps over blue ones.

[Sr.Infierno]

By the same token, I can also appreciate The Incredibles more than a Filmation movie ;)

Well, you can appreciate anything more then a Filmation movie, but that's a conversation for another time ;)

[HG Revolution]

imo 2D IS move impressive than 3D anyways. im sure some people will disagree with me on this but 3D is really only a case of pressin a few buttons i think, i know more goes into it than that obviously but still, thats what it seems like. im more impressed by 2D because someone actually DREW it, the entire film! and thats far move impressive than creating an entire film on a computer.

You certainly know hardly anything about the actual process of animation. Have you seen any of the extras on Pixar's DVDs? If all of computer animation was done by just pressing buttons, then Sully would be bald and Elastigirl would move like a robot. Not that there would even be a Sully or an Elastigirl if all of the CGI process was pressing buttons, because there wouldn't be any sculptures to scan into the computer. Not to mention *gasp* HAND-DRAWN character designs and storyboards. Also, the last time I checked, I don't know of any computer that could write an entire script by itself.

Oh wait. I think there was one. Hmm, was its name Butch Hartman?;)

All in all:

Pixar-grade 3D=Disney/Ghibli/classic WB-grade 2D>Burton/Aardman-grade stop-motion>IGPX/Stand Alone Complex-grade TV-budget 2D>Blue Sky-grade 3D>average Nicktoon/CN Original>Dreamworks 2D=Dreamworks 3D>most TV-budget 3D>motion-capture>Robot Chicken-grade stop-motion>Don Bluth-grade 2D>Hanna-Barbera>Clasky-Csupo>Peter Chung>Dougal>12oz Mouse>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dumb and Dumber

Yep, that explains it all.:p

[Bones Justice]

I like action shows and the only 3D action I have really been impressed by was Spider-man TNA and Final Fantasy. I am a big fan of the 3D series Roughnecks but would be just as much if it had been 2D, for example.

I wonder how many of these 3D movies would have been hits if they had been done in 2D? Admittedly, I never saw Finding Nemo (just not my kind of movie) but would adults have still gone to see it if it was the same story with traditional 2D animation? I doubt it.

[Golgo13]

I think the biggest variable on this issue is the build up of visual standards in the mediums.

With 2D, you literally draw anything anyway you want it. This means that the settings, characters and actions don't really have to be complient with real world action and physics.

CG, on the other hand, has to abide by those rules. The settings have to be created through proper modelling, textures, UV mapping and lighting. Characters MUST have relevant features to human anatomy that MUST look convincing. And sometimes you can't always get these results. I've seen many people argue over just how tough it is to model an ear in 3D. Then you've also got the character riggers, modelers and animator. Likewise, they have to abide by the same rules.

There is a lot more protocol and a higher level of demand from CG than there is from 2D which makes 2D a more open medium with limitless possibilities.

[judyindisguise]

I agree. In recent months I've rented "Bambi" and "Lady And The Tramp" and my god those films are freaking beautiful. Even recent Disney efforts in full animation like "Lion King" can't match these for quality. When you look at how solid the characters in those films appear, how flowing the movement is, how anchored the character's features are (I watched "Jungle Book 2" on Toon Disney yesterday and, while that film has some nice animal animation in it, there were still moments when the characters' facial features seemed to shift awkwardly when the characters' heads turn and tilt, an all-too-common error seen in modern 2-D animation), how convincing the use of mass and weight are, and you realize that there were no computers back when these films were made, that everything was drawn BY HAND, it just blows your mind. I enjoy CGI but there's no question that a really well-done 2D film is more impressive to me.

[judyindisguise]

You certainly know hardly anything about the actual process of animation. Have you seen any of the extras on Pixar's DVDs? If all of computer animation was done by just pressing buttons, then Sully would be bald and Elastigirl would move like a robot. Not that there would even be a Sully or an Elastigirl if all of the CGI process was pressing buttons, because there wouldn't be any sculptures to scan into the computer. Not to mention *gasp* HAND-DRAWN character designs and storyboards. Also, the last time I checked, I don't know of any computer that could write an entire script by itself.

Oh wait. I think there was one. Hmm, was its name Butch Hartman?;)

Now you knew I was gonna laugh at that one, and I am: LOLOLOL! :D

BTW, the extras on Pixar's "Monsters Inc." just rock out loud. The problems they had doing hair were fascinating, and the early renderings of Mike and Sully (Mike without arms? Sully with tentacles instead of legs?) were equally so. And the extras really reveal a lot about the creative process. I could have done without the chimp though. I don't like chimps. ;)

Also BTW, I highly recommend that people check out the extras on "Lady and the Tramp". They're among the best I've seen, especially "Backstage Disney". I've watched that 3 times so far. Terrifically informative and entertaining. Best part is when the children of some of the Nine Old Men are interviewed, plus there are fragments of Walt himself talking about LATT on his "Disneyland" TV show, and interviews with the daughter of singer/songwriter Peggy Lee and of Joe Grant, one of Disney's top idea men. I can't praise this DVD too highly, it just rocks.

[Barefoot Lurker]

The only thing that really impresses me in the old 2-d movies compared to the 3-d movies are the effects. 3-d is just another medium to animate in. It doesn't matter which medium is used, it's the story and characters that impress me.

[Anniemaniac]

You certainly know hardly anything about the actual process of animation. Have you seen any of the extras on Pixar's DVDs? If all of computer animation was done by just pressing buttons, then Sully would be bald and Elastigirl would move like a robot. Not that there would even be a Sully or an Elastigirl if all of the CGI process was pressing buttons, because there wouldn't be any sculptures to scan into the computer. Not to mention *gasp* HAND-DRAWN character designs and storyboards. Also, the last time I checked, I don't know of any computer that could write an entire script by itself.



Although i expected someone to say that, im still a little shocked u felt the need to tell me that its not all done with the flick of a switch. of course i know its not all done by just pushin a few buttons :rolleyes: i think you took that part a little too seriously.

and where did i say anything about the scripts? we're talking about the animation here, not the writing. of course, maybe i would like 3D a little more if the stories were a little more interesting.. and the jokes were a little more funny.. and the characters were a little less boring. but that aint the point.

the point is i dont see 3D animation in the same way i see 2D animation. it just doesnt catch my eye as much as 2D does. i remember when i was younger, i saw alice in wonder land and i thought the animation on it was amazing and excellently done and i still do think that even now. ive never had the same reaction with a CGI film before, and probably never will. toy story was the only CGI i film ive liked and the only one which impressed me. but even that didnt impress me as much as some 2D films have.

[havokpryde]

You certainly know hardly anything about the actual process of animation. Have you seen any of the extras on Pixar's DVDs? If all of computer animation was done by just pressing buttons, then Sully would be bald and Elastigirl would move like a robot. Not that there would even be a Sully or an Elastigirl if all of the CGI process was pressing buttons, because there wouldn't be any sculptures to scan into the computer. Not to mention *gasp* HAND-DRAWN character designs and storyboards. Also, the last time I checked, I don't know of any computer that could write an entire script by itself.

Oh wait. I think there was one. Hmm, was its name Butch Hartman?;)

All in all:

Pixar-grade 3D=Disney/Ghibli/classic WB-grade 2D>Burton/Aardman-grade stop-motion>IGPX/Stand Alone Complex-grade TV-budget 2D>Blue Sky-grade 3D>average Nicktoon/CN Original>Dreamworks 2D=Dreamworks 3D>most TV-budget 3D>motion-capture>Robot Chicken-grade stop-motion>Don Bluth-grade 2D>Hanna-Barbera>Clasky-Csupo>Peter Chung>Dougal>12oz Mouse>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dumb and Dumber

Yep, that explains it all.:p
Its just like I admire the animation of EEne more than Foster's. Both of them are visually appealing in their own way, but one takes alot more effort. I mean computers aren't easy as push a couple of buttons and magic appears, but they are known to speed up the animation process, no? Tim Burton's could have been done alot faster on a computer, but it would loose it distinctive visual appeal that he is known for.

[Discloner]

It all depends how much effort was put into the storyline and the animation. Most often, the two-dimensional films will be more impressive, because they're not mass-produced like CGI movies are nowadays. Then again, there is today's share of horrible two-dimensional films... wait, no there isn't.

But, in general (and, not just movies), I can't judge a show on its medium. That's just like choosing Sprite over 7up because you like white caps over blue ones.I agree with you 100%. I've said it before and I'll say it again...I honest to god don't care what medium it is created in, it really depends how good a film it is at heart. Beauty isn't only skin deep guys and gals. :p

I love the medium of Computer animation. Its fascinating to me. It can be beautiful, it can be industrial, it can be serious, it can be comedic...it can be anything it wants (just like 2D). Needless to say I find this hatred of the medium just because some big suits decided they like CGI better distresses me. 'Home on the Range' was a 2D film, and yet that didn't impress me one bit. On the flip side, 'Hoodwinked' got some surprisingly good reviews despite it not looking fantastic (modest budget).


I mean computers aren't easy as push a couple of buttons and magic appears, but they are known to speed up the animation process, no? Tim Burton's could have been done alot faster on a computer, but it would loose it distinctive visual appeal that he is known for.Depending on who you're talking about...not really, no. Pixar films still take an EXTREMELY long time to create beginning to end (we're talking 4+ years here), as do most of the other big theatrical CGI films. Heck, a little company in New Hampshire called 'Hatchling Studios' has been working on it's 7 minute short named 'The Troll' for a couple years now, and just this year they'll finally be able to present it at SIGGRAPH.

Its a common misconception that CGI is an easy way out, and honestly if you're talking with the right people it's not. It takes a lot of hard work and expertise to get what you see on the screen finished. There are aids in the process, like clothing Sims and hair sims...but the acting and believability, all the subtle nuances of a characters performance are all created from scratch (usually key-frame unless some mo-cap was done) from the artist.

[Pc-Famicom64]

After thinking about it, I noticed that when I watch a 2D animated movie, I'm more impressed by visual outcome, then that of a CGI movie.

Do you feel the same way?I like 2D better then 3D (But I stell like it) ,3D works better in a Video Game then in Animation.

[havokpryde]

I love the medium of Computer animation. Its fascinating to me. It can be beautiful, it can be industrial, it can be serious, it can be comedic...it can be anything it wants (just like 2D). Needless to say I find this hatred of the medium just because some big suits decided they like CGI better distresses me. 'Home on the Range' was a 2D film, and yet that didn't impress me one bit. On the flip side, 'Hoodwinked' got some surprisingly good reviews despite it not looking fantastic (modest budget).

Depending on who you're talking about...not really, no. Pixar films still take an EXTREMELY long time to create beginning to end (we're talking 4+ years here), as do most of the other big theatrical CGI films. Heck, a little company in New Hampshire called 'Hatchling Studios' has been working on it's 7 minute short named 'The Troll' for a couple years now, and just this year they'll finally be able to present it at SIGGRAPH.

Its a common misconception that CGI is an easy way out, and honestly if you're talking with the right people it's not. It takes a lot of hard work and expertise to get what you see on the screen finished. There are aids in the process, like clothing Sims and hair sims...but the acting and believability, all the subtle nuances of a characters performance are all created from scratch (usually key-frame unless some mo-cap was done) from the artist.
I don't think that CGI is stickman cartooning easy. Please answer the question would Tim Burton have had an easier time doing any of his movies in CG or stop motion. Sure all that stuff is hard in CG undeniably. Now tell me how much harder it would be in stop motion animation.

[Kaoru]

I like 2d movies better because they are less crowded with pointless detail and look smoother. And they are much harder to make. 3d is just live-action that's motion-captured and they put artificial textures on it. When you see something that looks cool in 3d you know it's real so it's not so cool, but if it's a 2d animation and for example when some object falls realistically I am much more appretiative of the work they put in to make it look as real as possible. Also most 3d movies are badly rendered because of all the pixells (like Robots).

[Discloner]

I don't think that CGI is stickman cartooning easy. Please answer the question would Tim Burton have had an easier time doing any of his movies in CG or stop motion. Sure all that stuff is hard in CG undeniably. Now tell me how much harder it would be in stop motion animation.
Some aspects are easier then others in both mediums...its kind of an unfair comparison.

Regardless...With Stop Motion you've got a physical object that you're moving frame by frame to create the illusion of movement. In CGI, you've got a virtual object that you're moving frame by frame (more often then not it is frame by frame) to create the illusion of illusion. With Stop Motion, you've got puppets/characters created by a model shop with a 'skeleton' underneath to support it and assist the animators in moving the object. With CGI, you've got characters and objects created from scratch in a virtual space, then shipped over to another department to have a virtual skeleton (rigging) place within them to let the animators animate them.

Stop Motion has to worry about precise object and character placement. CGI has to worry about textures, shading, simulations, and a slew of technical problems that are undoubtedly going to surface during the process.

In all honesty the bare bones process for creating films in both mediums are more or less the same. The technicalities are different, but I'd wager to say they're both equally as hard. One might be more tedious then the other...but something being tedious doesn't always equate to difficulty.

Likewise, you wouldn't approach two artists and say "What's harder, Acrylic paintings...or Pen and Ink?", because to artists its not the process that is important but the final result. Likewise, they'd balk at you for suggesting one is superior due to it being harder.

[Golgo13]

Some aspects are easier then others in both mediums...its kind of an unfair comparison.

Regardless...With Stop Motion you've got a physical object that you're moving frame by frame to create the illusion of movement. In CGI, you've got a virtual object that you're moving frame by frame (more often then not it is frame by frame) to create the illusion of illusion. With Stop Motion, you've got puppets/characters created by a model shop with a 'skeleton' underneath to support it and assist the animators in moving the object. With CGI, you've got characters and objects created from scratch in a virtual space, then shipped over to another department to have a virtual skeleton (rigging) place within them to let the animators animate them.

Actually, I'd say CG is easier to animate with than stop-motion in some areas such as gravity. If you want rag dolls or objects to fall all over the place, you simply do a little bit of programing with Reactor or Dynamics and there you go.

[Scythemantis]

It's probably because everyone in the world draws pictures at some point, but not many people have ever dabbled in 3-d art. Thus, you can understand and relate to a 2-d work much more easily.

Also, motion capture isn't really in wide-spread use.

[GagaMan]

The fact that there's so many poor ideas being done in 3D CGI movies (Foodfight, anyone?) is one of the reasons it is slowly getting a bad rep. If some more amazingly well written movies like the Increibles show up, then people won't care what medium it's produced in, and if all of this years' bound-to-flop titles were D, they'd still be flops anyway. Probably.

Mind you, I do agree with Scythemantis hat hand-drawn animation is easier to relate to. At times, 3D animation can just feel souless...like it was just generated by the computer with no creativity involved. Having worked with 3D programmes, attempting to animate in them myself I can tell you this...it doesn't feel as 'fun' to animate with a computer as it does with a lunchbox synch. You press buttons and string a bunch of textures, shapes and effects together. While some CGI stuff can look stunning, and I agree that it can help enhance many things (Think of all the 3D used in Disney's 2D films like Basil), but it's not quite as...well, enjoyable. Unless you're a computer fan, of course.

Personally, give me a piece of paper and a pencil any day. At least they don't need RAM, rendering, and don't crash.

[Anniemaniac]

At times, 3D animation can just feel souless...like it was just generated by the computer with no creativity involved.

thats exactly how i feel, and thats what i was tryna say in my first post i just coldnt word it right :sweat:. but thats one of the reasons why i prefer 2D animation over 3D.

[Discloner]

Actually, I'd say CG is easier to animate with than stop-motion in some areas such as gravity. If you want rag dolls or objects to fall all over the place, you simply do a little bit of programing with Reactor or Dynamics and there you go. That's one aspect, sure. However, how much easier is it to animate a guy picking up a physical object in stop motion then it is in CGI? In stop motion there's an actual object for the character to pick up. In CGI, they're two seperate objects in a virtual realm that an animator has to carefully animate as interacting. Its a lot harder to do that in CGI then Stop motion.

When you start getting down to the nitty gritty details, of course some aspects will be harder and others easier. Aren't some aspects of riding a bike harder then skateboarding (and vice versa)?