2D Animation Still Going Strong On Television.

[Dawalk]

I was thinking about how the CGI style has been taking over the animated movie world for some time now. And that got me to thinking and noticing just how much traditional animation is still in the spotlight on t.v. 2D animated films, for the most part, have since been moved to the wayside to make way for 3D, supposedly because that's more popular and nobody seems to care about 2D cartoons anymore. Yet there seems to be a lot more room for both 2D and 3D shows (and we still got 2D on t.v. thankfully). So that junk about 2D animation not being so relevant to the viewing public can't be true nor the case (at least as far as the small screen medium goes anyway, I guess) but still. Apparently, otherwise, nobody on here and like-minded sites would beg to differ and disagree. I don't even want to think about if and when 3D overtakes animation on t.v. eventually (and I so hope it never comes to that, I really do, it's bad enough that we've gotten that in movies), but what is your take on this? What's this about exactly? Is it because there's actually an even higher support, popularity and/or demand for both on t.v. or what else could it be? What's the explanation for this? Which I find odd and probably inconsistent.

[Doguineta]

I really hope CGI animation doesn't take over TV. I'm not a big fan of it. But if you think about it, 2D animation is still going stong:

Nickelodeon: Spongebob, TUFF Puppy, Fairly OddParents

Disney Channel: Phineas & Ferb, Fish Hooks

Cartoon Network: Adventure Time, Regular Show, Robotomy, Sym-Bionic Titan, Ben 10, Generator Rex, Young Justice, Batman

The Hub: Dan Vs., My Little Pony, Pound Puppies, G.I. Joe

FOX: American Dad, The Simpsons, Bob's Burgers, Family Guy, Cleveland Show

[Silverstar]

First, I think a little clarification is required: it's not 2D VS 3D, it's hand-drawn animation VS CGI (Computer Generated Imagery). 3D is visual perspective, not an animation style. There are plenty of CGI projects that are filmed in a 2D perspective: 1 dimension for each eye. Not all CGI is automatically 3D.

Second, CGI is never going to "take over TV". That's just paranoia. Yes, CGI is currently the trend for animated movies, but movies in general have a larger budget to work with than TV shows. TV animation is never going to completely go CGI for the simple fact that CG, particularly quality CG, is very expensive to produce.

CGI isn't taking over; it's just another way of visually presenting a story. Traditional hand-drawn animation isn't going anywhere. Heck, even CGI projects start out as hand drawings before before being put through the process of computer animation.

[Monterey Jack]

Second, CGI is never going to "take over TV". That's just paranoia. Yes, CGI is currently the trend for animated movies, but movies in general have a larger budget to work with than TV shows. TV animation is never going to completely go CGI for the simple fact that CG, particularly quality CG, is very expensive to produce.

Precisely. That CGI Father Of The Pride show (I think that was the title) that aired on NBC a few years back was doomed to failure, because CG animation of any appreciable quality is HUGELY EXPENSIVE. If it were as cheap as hand-drawn cartoons, it would have taken over TV by now.

[Dawalk]

I really hope CGI animation doesn't take over TV. I'm not a big fan of it. But if you think about it, 2D animation is still going stong:

Nickelodeon: Spongebob, TUFF Puppy, Fairly OddParents

Disney Channel: Phineas & Ferb, Fish Hooks

Cartoon Network: Adventure Time, Regular Show, Robotomy, Sym-Bionic Titan, Ben 10, Generator Rex, Young Justice, Batman

The Hub: Dan Vs., My Little Pony, Pound Puppies, G.I. Joe

FOX: American Dad, The Simpsons, Bob's Burgers, Family Guy, Cleveland Show

Some of the shows you mentioned are from past years/decades and they're good, that's okay, don't get me wrong. But I was talking more about the shows in/from recent years as far as the past decade specifically. And I know 2D is still being made, that's why I mentioned television as far as that goes.

First, I think a little clarification is required: it's not 2D VS 3D, it's hand-drawn animation VS CGI (Computer Generated Imagery). 3D is visual perspective, not an animation style. There are plenty of CGI projects that are filmed in a 2D perspective: 1 dimension for each eye. Not all CGI is automatically 3D.

Second, CGI is never going to "take over TV". That's just paranoia. Yes, CGI is currently the trend for animated movies, but movies in general have a larger budget to work with than TV shows. TV animation is never going to completely go CGI for the simple fact that CG, particularly quality CG, is very expensive to produce.

CGI isn't taking over; it's just another way of visually presenting a story. Traditional hand-drawn animation isn't going anywhere. Heck, even CGI projects start out as hand drawings before before being put through the process of computer animation.

That's great to read. Because I like variety. Just as long as it never comes to the point of overkill, CGI is fine with me. I strongly believe and feel that there still should always be plenty of space for all forms of animation made available. You got some points there, I can see how the style in one medium came to be more common than that same style in the other now, that makes sense. Although I'm not quite sure I'd know the difference between CG that has quality and the CG that doesn't, maybe because I haven't seen enough to make the distinctions. But I have somewhat of an idea.

Precisely. That CGI Father Of The Pride show (I think that was the title) that aired on NBC a few years back was doomed to failure, because CG animation of any appreciable quality is HUGELY EXPENSIVE. If it were as cheap as hand-drawn cartoons, it would have taken over TV by now.

Yeah, I remember that one. So that's why that show didn't last long and it all depends on the budget? That makes sense too. I can see that now. I guess that's also a lesson that producers of other CG shows of which they can take note: Never attempt to bring higher quality CG on a big budget to t.v.

Mod Edit: Please don't triple post. Use the edit button instead. Thank you.

[suss2it]

Some of the shows you mentioned are from past years/decades and they're good, that's okay, don't get me wrong. But I was talking more about the shows in/from recent years as far as the past decade specifically. And I know 2D is still being made, that's why I mentioned television as far as that goes.

All the shows he mentioned still have new episodes that air presently, so they should be included in the discussion.

[Doguineta]

Some of the shows you mentioned are from past years/decades and they're good, that's okay, don't get me wrong. But I was talking more about the shows in/from recent years as far as the past decade specifically. And I know 2D is still being made, that's why I mentioned television as far as that goes.

As the above poster said, every show I included hasn't been cancelled yet and are still premiering new episodes.

[OriginalGagBonke]

I've been wondering on why people say 2D animation is dead but in real life its still going for the television. As far as I would guess CG animation wouldn't take over TV anytime soon because you cant run CG on a TV budget. CG is expensive for TV and not to mention the fact that most CG I've seen on a TV budget looks like an unfinished video game cutscene.

If I remember right. Father of the pride had a bit of an negative community and its not for its low CG budget. Parents had mistaken it as a kids cartoon despite it being made for an older audience.

[Monte]

So that junk about 2D animation not being so relevant to the viewing public can't be true nor the case (at least as far as the small screen medium goes anyway, I guess) but still. Apparently, otherwise, nobody on here and like-minded sites would beg to differ and disagree. I don't even want to think about if and when 3D overtakes animation on t.v. eventually (and I so hope it never comes to that, I really do, it's bad enough that we've gotten that in movies), but what is your take on this? What's this about exactly? Is it because there's actually an even higher support, popularity and/or demand for both on t.v. or what else could it be? What's the explanation for this? Which I find odd and probably inconsistent.

I think one of the main reasons why 2D animation is more prevalent in TV than 3D is because A LOT of those 2D shows are flash animated. If i recall correctly, Flash animation is very cheap compared to other forms of animation. As popular as 3D is, producers find cheaper methods of animation to be the better option; Afterall, a 3D show has to be very popular to make up for the costs. Flash is just a much safer option

As for more traditional animation... i'm not so sure on the difference of cost. a lot of it can depend on what level of quality you are talking about, the more corners you cut in the animation the more money you save. 3D may still be more expensive for the most part, but the difference probably isn't as big as it is between 3D and flash

First, I think a little clarification is required: it's not 2D VS 3D, it's hand-drawn animation VS CGI (Computer Generated Imagery). 3D is visual perspective, not an animation style. There are plenty of CGI projects that are filmed in a 2D perspective: 1 dimension for each eye. Not all CGI is automatically 3D.

Really don't nitpick like that...
Really, even professional CGI animators refer to themselves as "3D animators"... Both the industry and schools for animation commonly refer to any computer generated animation as "3D"... there is nothing wrong with referring to CGI animation as 3D animation
Furtharmore, Not all 2D animation fall under the category of "hand Drawn" animation. There is also cut-out animation, and flash animation

I've been wondering on why people say 2D animation is dead but in real life its still going for the television. As far as I would guess CG animation wouldn't take over TV anytime soon because you cant run CG on a TV budget.

Well its in part because films on the theatrical level often sets the path for everything below it. The better 3D does, the more tv producers will want to capitalize on it, and the less they will for other forms of animation. Take for instance more traditional styles of animation... there's not as many shows as there was years ago. There are a number of shows that are either going with 3D because it's popular, or with flash because its cheap. 2D animation is not dead, nor would I say its dying, but it certainly isn't as strong as it was in the past.

3D animation has been doing fine on TV despite their budgets. Seriously if there was no money in it, networks would not even bother trying in the first place

CG is expensive for TV and not to mention the fact that most CG I've seen on a TV budget looks like an unfinished video game cutscene.

Why should you expect better? Do you think 3D on tv needs to look like the same quality as pixar? Because that's something of a double standard. Afterall, 2D animation on TV for the most part doesn't even come close to the 2D animation that you get on a theatrical film budget