2D Animation Vs. CGI Animation

[Brandon Pierce]

Just a simple poll. I prefer 2D. CGI is good, when it's done well (like Shrek).

[nakak]

I definatly prefer 2D format. While CGI can be neat, I prefer that characters are drawn on hand.

[GagaMan]

2D for me. CGI feels like a rather souless format, as it's more a case of clicking things like txtures together from software rather than, you know, creating things staight from you mind. Also, if done badly CGI ages REALLY badly, and often it stands out like a sore thumb where it's been used in live action movies etc. I think he main problem with he technique is how Hollywood is now using it as the be all and end all of any special effects or animation, which is a rathe dull way of going about it.

As much as I love Pixar movies, and enjoyed some of the other stuff, it should be an alternative technique, not a replacement.

[Bubblegum Girl]

I like both 2D and CGI but I'm more into 2D than CGI. Also I feel that CGI is being used too much.

[Rasputin]

Well..."2D" and "CGI" are not exactly mutually exclusive concepts. Most 2-dimensional animation these days is done on computers, 3-dimensional animation relies on story-boards and often-times you have both of them in the same film. There are many things 2D can do well and many things 3D can do well. Can't we all just get along?

[Ekkostar]

I'm a fan of 2D, but it's so obviously dead, although I'm suprised that Curious George was done in 2D. That's a rarity now.

EVERYTHING is done in 3D now. 3D... wave of the future.

[Riddle]

My problem with this thread is that its awfully limiting. At a time when two of the three Oscar feature nominees uses neither of these choices I have to think that something is lacking in this poll set up.

I think animators should use whatever medium that they prefer, as artistic technique, whatever they think will work best in a film, budgetary concerns, etc. I like traditional drawn animation, cgi, model animation, clay animation, cut out animation, pixallation, etc. I can think of great and bad films made with all of these animation forms. Its a pity that Hollywood can't get beyond whatever was great last week.

[Duke]

I personally think that a blend works best. Obvious examples include IGPX and Ghost in the Shell. They use 2D and CGI to their best ability and blend them together extremely well. And then there's The Lion King & Mulan, which do it just as well.

On the whole, I like 2D a bit more because it allows for easier stylization and makes some segments look cooler.

[herbkir]

The poll choices make it one or the other when it really depends on the story being told and who's doing the story-telling. I've liked productions done either way. Today, 2D and 3D are often blended, and 2D is done on computers. Still, given the choices available, I picked 2D.

The drawback I've seen with 3D productions is they can have a sterile, dry "feel" to them that detracts from the story. (^_*)

[zano88]

there should be an option that says: "i enjoy both equally, if they are well done"

[Gokou Ruri]

It depends on the show, the type (action, comedy, drama) and the character designs.... Jimmy Neutron looks really weird in 2D while FOP looks pretty weird in 3D.

[tucsoncoyote]

It depends on the show, the type (action, comedy, drama) and the character designs.... Jimmy Neutron looks really weird in 2D while FOP looks pretty weird in 3D.

I think Jack Spicer hits upon a very good point here and for good reason.. It's not which idea is better (2D or CGI), but rather what Medium of animation works best for each show and/or movie.

For Example.. Wallace and Grommit (or any of the Wallace and Grommit) Cartoons aren't really 2D or 3D, but rather Claymation..(Can you imagine Wallace and Grommit being drawn in 2D? or for that matter being done in 3D CGI? of Course not.. This is a Cartoon that is done in the style much like Gumby was some 40 to 50 years ago..(Claymation)

Conversely some animation that works in 3D also works in 2D as well.. Disney's Buzz Lightyear for example Looked good in both 2D (Such as the TV Series Shows) or 3D (Such as in the Two Toy Story movies).

But Like Jack Pointed out some animation doesn't Translate very well. For Example He Cite's Jimmy Neustron, I tend to Agree, also FOB doesn't translate well in 3D..(yet Look at The Transformers series of shows.. it works well either way.

So really in the end, it's really not which is better, cause to be honest, both have their Strengths and Weaknesses, but rather it's how you present the show..

I mean I can not really comprehend any two D show that has it's own Styl, to become 3D.. and I highly doubt any 3D show does translate well into 2D..

Nuff Said..

[jv2k]

I say that when done well they both look good but I am more wowed by good 2d animation then I ever can be with 3d.

[CookieS]

You need 2D before you can even get into 3D. Storyboarding is still done as rough sketches. Color charts are usually done with flat images. It isn't until you apply lighting does the differece even matter.

To me this is apples and oranges. Its like asking if you like an action film from the 30's vs. the present day. Obviously each has its own limitations and charm. So my answer is: I don't care.

[ToOn~g@l]

I voted 2D. Theres something about CGI that I don't like, I think its the too realistic look they give the characters. And I think 2D has a better way of showing emotion in the characters, CGI just looks flat and the same all the time.

[Anniemaniac]

i gotta vote 2D.

Theres something about CGI that I don't like, I think its the too realistic look they give the characters. And I think 2D has a better way of showing emotion in the characters, CGI just looks flat and the same all the time

yep i agree totally with u. thats what i wanted to say but didnt know how to word it

[Doopliss]

I'd say 2D, because it gives it more of a cartoon feeling. When movies are CGI they look too realistic, and it doesn't give off the same expressive vibe.

[JMorgan]

i gotta vote 2D.



yep i agree totally with u. thats what i wanted to say but didnt know how to word it

Yeah, I agree with that quote as well, though very well-done CGI works can be about as good as a half-decent 2D cartoon, at times. 9 times out of 10, though, I much prefer 2D. The best stuff from my childhood was 2D, so obviously I'll doubtfully ever be swayed completely to PREFER 3D, though it's unique and different and nice to see every once in awhile.

I still believe in the rise of 2D again. Enough people are interested in it that once they're all ready to do something, it might just happen.

[K-S-O]

I voted two-dimensional animation for the reasons already stated. I am also one to hope that CGI animation doesn't serve as a replacement of hand-drawn.

[Superperson]

I like 2D, I like it even more when it's done traditionally rather then digitally, even though it does let for more artistic freedom as you can do more with the digital drawings in the way of effects and what not, moreso then traditional but it isn't so much a difference as to be annoying or anything. The sterile boring feel of cheap CG drawn cartoons is becoming really noticeble in Japan. I've seen too many anime series of late that outside of having different styles from eachother all have the same exact feel when it comes to the actual animation. This has something to do with either the anime animation techniques not transferring as well into the digital medium or something but seeing the same boring CG look is starting to get tireing. This is less noticeable in American animation probably because techniques arn't too similair from show to show and styles tend to vary quite alot from each other and the increased framerate of character movement. Even though in older traditionally animated anime doesn't seem to have this redundant boring animation look from show to show at all it's only the CG animated ones that feel that way, maybe this is just a matter of opinion.

Now on this whole CGI aspect, I think it's a great and beautiful medium, but it's really being abused at the moment. Studios are just using it as a trend rather then a artisic choice. It's almost just as nice as traditional animation if done very well as in the way of Pixar, I really disagree on the whole the realism of it takes away from it. Yes the realism can take away from it if is just trying to downright mimic realism down to a T. As in say a movie like Final Fantasy. The characters were so real looking they felt fake, their movements were not real enough to match how they looked because it's technically impossible to ever get them to move totally realistically since you cant make anything 100% real inside a computer, because well...its a computer.
But in my opinion the the realism (as far as shadows, lighting, enviorments in whole) alongside with some well designed stylized characters (like in The Incredibles) is just really great looking. That's one of the best thing's about CGI animation is how beleivable the eviorments feel without nesscicerilly feeling real.
But I've made this long enough, so, I'm done.