Is 2D really dead?

[General Grizz]

Legacy Animation didn't die because 2-D was replaced. In fact, I doubt it has anything to do with the medium, but rather external issues (no matter what kind of art it was trying to make).

2-D animation can flourish if Disney will let it. 2-D is only dead because Disney has sabotaged it.

Disney will never capture the beauty of its 2-D films in 3-D form for quite some time, and their 3-D films will be just as stale as Atlantis once Disney can start producing mass and cheap animation.

And then what? 3-D will be dead because Disney can't make good films?

2-D is only dead because Eisner killed it. Its successful ressurection will come under good management.

 

[Woody13]

Originally posted by General Grizz
2-D is only dead because Eisner killed it. Its successful ressurection will come under good management.

Why haven't other studios rushed in to hire all those talented 2D animators? I think you're giving Eisner way too much credit here. Mike can't kill something that was already dead nor can he bring it back to life.

I think this is a job for Superhero Steve Jobs!:lol:

 

[General Grizz]

Speaking of Jobs, we'd all be blown away if Pixar did 2-D.

 

[cloudboy]

But would Pixar succeed at 2D? The films Pixar has done are great, but as soon as mediocre stuff starts flooding the market, I don't think 3D is going to be much of a selling point.

I think 2D is flourishing, and will continue to flourish. Look at all the Japanese and other asian countries films. They even have style to a lot of their work, which is something important. Once the story lines get a little better, I think you may see a resurgence in it.

Besides, we don't know if yet another company might start up.

 

[Woody13]

As we all know, a good story is supreme! 3D will not make a bad story good nor will 2D make a good story bad.

However, 3D has all the elements of 2D and a lot more! CGI is the "Steam Hammer" of animation while 2D is poor old dead John Henry.

John Henry beat the steam hammer once, and he died in the process.

 

[Enderikari]

In its core, this is similar to the special effects argument in the movies... All the visual splendor can't make up for good story, no matter how many recognizable buildings you explode (Independence Day) or how life-like you can project the future (Waterworld).

A good story will sell, and a good story told in 2-D will sell just as well as 3-D

 

[Woody13]

Originally posted by Enderikari
A good story will sell, and a good story told in 2-D will sell just as well as 3-D

2D is more expensive and it doesn't look as good!:lol: Not much profit in that idea.

 

[cloudboy]

Unfortunately, 3d is not at that point yet where you can really, really recreate the art effects. You can do the backgrounds, but then you are only doing 2d work there anyway. Now there are things which they can do very well in 3d - and in fact a number of the latest Disney features (at least the ones I have seen) would likely do well in that style anyway.

Question - what are you thinking of as 3D? I am thinking 3D modeling, full 3 dimensional models. I am considering just painitng on a computer as 2d (yous are still working in two dimensions, it's just the paintbrush look s alittle different). Are you perhaps considering this 3d?

 

[Woody13]

Originally posted by cloudboy
Question - what are you thinking of as 3D?

CGI, of course. Don't weasel out on me here! I made that crystal clear in previous posts.

 

[General Grizz]

One of Disney's greatest animators tells the story of why he resigned from the Walt Disney Co. - showing how management KILLED 2-D.

http://www.pruiksma.com/bananasplit.html

And. . . my good friends. . . if 2-D is dead, 3-D will be dead in about 10 years. . . if Disney is still under our lame DUCK executive, EISNER.

 

[cloudboy]

See? They still DO 2D stuff! 3D is modeled forms - three dimensional things. Like Nemo - they had a three dimensional computer model of him. But it still is next to impossible to do backgrounds in 3D - you can't model everysingle hill and tree and everything in it. So you have to recreate that on a flat plane. That's 2D. You may have used a computer to do it, but you are still working in 2D.

So then the only difference is whether that is done by hand or by computer. Realistically I think it will be a bit of both. Most of the computer programs simply recreate hand done techniques anyway, and jjust enhance them. So if the hand drawn techniques work, and especially with background, work well, why replace them?

It's not the tool - it's the artist. It's the look they create. But Disney is missing that whole part of it now and just going after one artistic technique. Very limiting. I know that story is a big element, but it is not the only element. Don't get caught up with the neat new toys - there are still things the old toys do very well.

 

[stitch131313]

Originally posted by Woody13
2D animation had a fine run. IMHO, if Walt was still in charge, he would have dumped 2D long ago in favor of CGI!

I don't think he would have gotten rid of it. He would have just made both 2D and 3D films. He understood the value of tradition, but also the importance of progress.

 

[prberk]

Look, story is still king. Pixar succeeds because it matches its new and brilliant technology with the type of storytelling and fun that it brought over from Disney (with John Lassiter and others who never worked for Disney but were influenced by it and other good storytellers).

The medium is NOT the message. Listening to paint dry in 5.1 Dolby Digital is still listening to paint dry. At least on vinyl it would have some crackle to go with it!