Will 2D animation ever return to the big screen?

I hope no one would reply, and this thread would die.

But no, we can't have that, can we?

>he doesn't know

Maybe after Disney finish doing live-action remakes of all their other films they'll do 2D remakes of their CGI films

>inb4 anything Ghibli

2D animation is a natural human ability whereas CGI is an elaborate arrangement of computer code.

what about the AT movie?

>2d animation is just an elaborate arrangement of paint and pencil lead

The movie that shall not-be-named.

Is cheaper than CG but the problem is that apparently the public is not interested.
Or that the executives have concluded that the public is not interested, whatever you prefer.

>Or that the executives have concluded that the public is not interested

That's what happened. If The Lion King re-release was a success in 2011, a new 2D film can have success too.

They have some pretty decent reason to think that 2D isn't gonna sell, seeing as nothing save the Simpsons movie has made 300 mil worldwide for sixteen fucking years.

That's right, if the gap between the last really successful 2D animated movie and now was a person, it would be learning to drive. Even anime giants like Miyazaki can't pull it off, and get beaten by stuff like Frozen. Worse, as time goes on, there are less and less people who are capable of big scale, great looking 2D animation in america. Animators are being told to pitch their stuff as CGI, they're being told to learn CG if they want to do theatrical work, and the gap is growing.

isn't mlp flash-based?

Movies in Japan don't really fare well honestly though. Some break 50 million, others don't.

It was nice while it lasted, but it doesn't matter anymore. The limits of 2D animation have been reached a long time ago and there's no more innovation to be had. I'd rather see 3D animated features now as the best ones always have got technical innovations to offer.

Based Laika has to make a 2D film.

2D animation is cheaper than 3D animation, but it doesn't make as much money. The problem is that studios aren't interested in making low-budget movies with risky premises anymore. They only want to do blockbusters, or potential blockbusters. The thing that killed 2D animation is the same thing that's killing Hollywood in general.

The only way we can get more animated movies is if Netflix takes an interest in funding them.

Max Landis is working on a script for a Pepe Le Pew movie. I don't know if the film is going to be 2D animated but there's a chance.
comingsoon.net/movies/news/705775-pepe-le-pew-movie-in-development-with-max-landis-writing

Why does Pepe look so gay

pepe is an alt right hate meme

technicolor equines on the big screen next year my nigga

I think the photorealistic CG remake of the Lion King would make that a firm no.

That's Bob going full Eisner: When Disney threw out 2D the first time, Eisner wanted to make a shot-for-shot CG remake of Pinocchio because he thought the medium was inherently superior.

only of someone will make a 2D movie so good it'll make a billion dollars worldwide.

i don't see it happening this decade. or ever.

Why cant they just find a few up and coming animators, and ship the major work to some sweatshop in korea? Im sick of these pop music infused cgi shitfests. I want me some real cartoons back on the big screen.

Always a wonderful movie.

...

No, it's time came and went, get over it.
Flash is easier to use, but hard to actually make look good. So you're going to have a bunch of young cartoonists over the next ten years doing amazing things with that.

Stop motion is an impressive art, but I feel like that if they can do all that stuff with real puppets, using 3D models and programs should let them do amazing things. Rigs and frames are basically the same.

Then you have the people who can do a great mixture of 3D and Flash, allowing for some beautiful imagery, but that's not a talent most people want to learn.

tl;dr: Flash and 3D are the new kings of animation, deal with it.

Even the fucking Beast is CGI. I wouldn't count on it.

That's because Princess and The Frog tanked.
>First black Disney Princess
>Niggers ruin everything

Flash is gimped as fuck and 3D is expensive. Flash replaced hand drawn because it's cheap despite looking like arse and 3D replaced hand drawn because it's new and feels more appropriate in the increasingly digitalised world. It's not that hand draw 'couldn't do enough' because it was older technology.

I think one thing that doomed hand drawn in at least North America was the insistence to produce very clean looking movies. 3D is a natural consequence of that, there are even less 'imperfections' as in evidence of what kind of tools were used to produce the imagery.

Still 2D

Well, Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons and Bolt weren't great successes too, and they're CGI films.

>3D is expensive

This feels like a meme. 3D is most definitively simpler and easier, thus it should logically be cheaper as a result.

digital 2d.

Only idiots use paper. Every single studio that uses Flash or ToonBoom is adequately able to produce good traditional hand-drawn animation.

You just need to break the industry mindset of being slaves to rigs and tweens and draw that shit out.

CGI doesn't involve making a brand new model for every single frame of animation.

Tell that to Walt Disney and Don Bluth.

Never, they just need up the 3D tech to have it look like 2D.

That's nothing to a team of trained animators, much like you don't hire newbie amateurs to rig your CGI models.

Oddly, as someone who's pretty proficient at both, I always found CGI way harder to handle than 2D animation. Things like accidental clipping, or the rig fucking up without realizing it until you see the playback, and meticulously adjusting the animation frame by frame after discovering these fuckups....

Then waiting hours upon hours for a scene to render and hope to god you don't have to go back and fix anything....

Fixing things up in 2D doesn't nearly as much time or energy.

All forms of 3D animation are just an absolute tedious pain in the ass. Anyone that has the patience for it and does it well gets an A in my book.

You clearly don't know Flash.

The worst part about CGI is that ages like milk. Every few years or so sees better software to increase polygon counts, improve rigging/animation methods, etc.

CGI from 20 years ago:
youtube.com/watch?v=68ugkg9RePc

2D from over 60 years ago:
youtube.com/watch?v=aHBVrB9Gd0U

Which one looks better compared to today's standards?

To be fair, the use of CGI and computers and general are still relatively new. Like we're talking it's just getting into it's "learning to walk" stages. As far as animations concerned, we've had paper and pencils for centuries, and things like anatomy in illustration were mastered in the 1400s at the latest. 2D animation had a lot to work with before it really kicked off.

Crude 2D animation done by outsourcing to gooks like Rick and Morty is cheaper than CGI, Disney-tier 2D animation is more expensive than Disney-tier 3D animation

I don't think they are directly comparable. With CGI there is no obvious 'level' of detail where to settle, and it's harder to achieve the same kind of texture uniformity (for the lack of a better term) in a work as with hand drawn where rendering is limited. People never stop expecting CGI to look better than it already is because it can theoretically go all the way to absolute photorealism.

A benefit stop motion has over CGI is that it always has the natural texture from the materials which creates a different impression from CGI and affects the audience's standards for acceptable visual fidelity.

Isn't the Adventure Time movie coming out in a couple of years?

>Disney-tier 2D animation is more expensive than Disney-tier 3D animation
This is wrong. 40s/50s Disney budgets aren't even close to $100M adjusted for inflation, and the budgets for the 90s movies includes CGI.

>only idiots use paper
You mean animators that still give a shit about animating still use it. Kill yourself.

There's a reason why contemporary animators still use pencils and paper my friend.

It's fucking handy when you need to whip up something right there and then is why.

He's French.

BREADWINNERS?!?!

I figured they still used paper because typically, staring at a bright screen virtually non stop for the entire production process is very eye straining and exhausting. I'm going out of my way to learn how to animate on paper because while its not as messy to do everything digitally, I find myself notably more tired and stressed out doing it exclusively digital. It's also easier to lose track of frames no matter how clearly labeled because of how condensed programs are compared to physical objects you can flip through and move and cut in half

It also helps that you won't strain your eyes out of their sockets with the radiation computer monitors constantly bombard you with.

Software has gotten to the point where you can make good hand-drawn completely paperless and beyond the limitation of traditional media. Concept artists and designers discovered this with Photoshop; Even pro, veteran animators have moved on to TVPaint. Why can't you except that?

There's definitely a lot of assumptions why there's animators that still prefer paper over digital. It boils down to personal preference in the end, though.

Spirited Away grossed more than Frozen. Frozen's success in Japan didn't have anything to do with it being 3D, it was popular because it was Disney's and because there was a lot of hype. Nearly all animation produced in Japan is 2D, 3D just isn't popular.

Makoto Shinkai's new movie "your name." has become the highest grossing of the year, beating both Zootopia and Finding Dory. And the new Godzilla. It's only been out for a little over a month.

animenewsnetwork.com/news/2016-09-26/shinkai-your-name-is-japan-highest-grossing-film-for-2016/.106907
youtube.com/watch?v=hRfHcp2GjVI

It's all relative. Japan is half the size of America and their movies also have to compete with American imports. Movies based on late night anime also have different standards for success than the likes of Ghibli.

I never see anyone say this about live action, but I've seen people say it several times about animation. Is animation nothing but technological innovation to you?

That's the circle of life.
Fuckin Jews man.
Except in other countries it still lives the problem is all the cynical as fuck Jew producers here in America. It all began in 2005. Disney films were not making as much money as the Pixar ones, no problem right? After all Disney owned Pixar well not for long as news came out that two might split, Disney freaked and where all like "Oy Vey! Annuda Shoah!" So what was supposed to be a 2D film (Chicken Little), became a 3D flick and the studio kicked it's CGI productions into high gear, they as well others in the business (an executive at Warner Bros blamed 2D for Osmosis Jones failure) soon camed to believe only CGI sells, not once did they think it had anything to with the writing. I remember when Finding Nemo came out it made everyone cry like a little bitch, as well as making them fall in love with the characters. Disney could hardly emote that kind of feeling, although I did cry when watching Chicken Little, after how much money I wasted on that piece of poultry-excrement.

>I never see anyone say this about live action
You'd think but people are pushing 3D glasses and VR headsets specifically because they want to reinvent film by killing it and borrowing its name for an entirely new medium without realising that different things can coexist.

The anime industry still by and large uses paper. Tablets are probably more efficient, but there are some good practical reasons why the industry has been slow to adopt them.

>good practical reasons
Yeah, paper is cheaper than consumer electronics.

so they can scan and upload later to draw over digitally like the makers of Cuphead did?

>The anime industry still by and large uses paper.
Stop talking out your ass please.

I'm not.

Everyone is familiar with paper and pen animation, it costs effectively nothing, it requires no real equipment, it has a minimum learning curve, and it's a simple standard for all studios to use (standards are important because of the very collaborative nature of the industry). I think the industry will eventually go mostly digital, but it seems to be a very slow process.

they only do cleanup/coloring digitally. the animations are all hand-drawn on paper.

Now post some 2D back when it first started, too.

youtube.com/watch?v=lcR2CtqYiSE

I've heard rumors that's it will be animated in toon boom rather than flash

The earliest animations aren't actually bad at all. That Nemo stuff is fucking godlike compared to cartoons today.

What's funny is that modern shows still look like that, almost a century later. Sideways perspective, characters standing level with each other.

Yeah right here
entertainmentcareers.net/DHX-Media/Feature-Storyboard-Artists-2D/job/197337/
"Large fanbase" definitely points to it

Yea toonboom is really good. Flash is such a piece of shit once you start using toonboom it's not even funny. Animating in flash is like with both hands cut off and blind folded in comparison.

The American approach to animation is that what makes animation great is the number of frames and how smoothly and seamlessly they go together. The viewers should never become aware of the individual drawings. So, artistically speaking, why not use 3D animation instead? It's better for those purposes. Disney used to use rotoscoping so they could get the most realistic and smooth movements, and I think eventually they may have also rotoscoped 3D animation. Their overall style even seemed like it was somehow anticipating 3D animation before it came into use. 3D animation also makes three-dimensional shots trivial, which is something that animators seemed to have struggled with in 2D.

And yet Flash looks just like that, but worse.
"60 FPS" is a meme, killed animation standards.
Also what said. If standards and skill were actually good, puppet shit movement wouldn't exist today and we'd have actual good animation with good choreography to display motion. i.e Also btw, the whole paper vs digital is a shit argument, it's completely preferences. You DO know that you're essentially trying to say the masters of animation that's done their craft in that mold can just magically go over to a whole new generation of animation without a problem, right? I mean, I'm sure they can, but that's like saying all of Cred Forums manchild that grew up in the 90s wouldn't prefer all the 90s era shows over most 2000s - 2010s era shows. It's entirely subjective, they simply use what's native to their art methods.

What are the most significant differences between the two?

has the same thing I mentioned. Sideways perspective and characters standing level with each other. Even if the animation otherwise is much better.

In terms of live action it would be if like every movie today looked like youtube.com/watch?v=ZdIiZzc0Ceo .

I think that we'll get more 3D that is made to look like 2D. Hand drawn probably won't make a comeback, but they'll try to satisfy the demand for it by imitating it as best as possible. Like the new Berserk, but not terrible.

>If standards and skill were actually good, puppet shit movement wouldn't exist today
>He thinks TV animation is a result of lack of skill rather than budget restrictions and cheap studios

Like, everything.

For example, in flash you build stuff through symbols to puppet animate. However this requires you to go in and out of symbols and animating inside them a few frames at a time, jumping out, seeing if it looks good and moving it, then doing it over and over for every symbol.

In toonboom everything is accessible on stage and animatable without any need to jump into "symbols".

In flash if you want the arm to go behind body, you have to copy a llayer, find the body layer, paste under it, animate a bit there, then cut layer and paste it back up.

In toonboom you can shift in 3d z-space with one click, no need to copy/paste any layers.

In flash you have mask layers you make, and you have to edit them all the time as masks change

In toonboom you can make masks be a functon of color or a layer, and they are dynamic and change with the layer however you want and or bound to a color/colors.

In flash if you have an arm and you bend it, teh elbow will break and you need to close cap manually .

In toonboom you can have limbs/bodies/objects/etc merge seamessly with just a node setup and they work without any need to redraw.

Toonboom has all kinds of deformers and bitmap abiltity as well, flash has no bitmap drawing or anything.

Toonboom brushes are awesome and clean, flashes are messy and ugly if you try to draw and run on ancient vector code.

I could go on for hours about how much TB is better. Here's a quick gif of stuff flash can't do but TB can do in seconds.

The sad truth is just that. Flash animation is cheap and looks "good enough". Todays generations grew up with puppeted animation and 3d, so they don't care nor know any better. Familyguy/simpsons/futarama/bobsburgers/etc is all puppeted in some form. There's barely any animation studious left in the USA that does 2d animatino, everyone else is either 3d or outsources to 3rd world countries (who also do puppeted/3d animations).

I hope that isn't your gif.
Because I did not like where the rabbit hole went when I did some spelunking.

Yeah it's my gif. Are you referring to my other works?

I don't think there is any substantial demand for 2D-like animation. Though I guess it's always possible Disney might try something like it in the future.

There's a lot of reasons why American TV animation has been so troubled. Skill is one of them, but you can't blame budget restrictions when the anime industry had even worse conditions.

Yes.

Ahahahaha yeah. I wouldn't live up to my name if i didnt have it though. To be fair all the animators i know do porn in some form, just everyone else tends to make an alt name. I thought it would be funny if i used one name and it's made the news twice now.

>but you can't blame budget restrictions when the anime industry had even worse conditions.
Yes I can. Japan does not have a proper animation guild as of yet. It's the reason why we are able to make a living doing animation. Without it, we would be forced to get paid per frame and would certainly put out more "drawings" just to eat. However, with the guild, studios want shit done sooner so they don't have to keep paying by the hour or keep them on longer days and inflate budgets. Most Japanese animators put up with the work conditions because they don't have a choice.

Studios been cutting them back more and more because of digital programs since the execs view them as time savers, and therefore money savers. To compare, storyboarders used to have an average of 6 weeks to board an episode and it has since been cut down to 4 weeks.

Anime has similar ways of cutting back while meeting deadlines. Lots of held frames, lots of looping animations, lots of long pans across a background, lots of CG utilization for backgrounds, re-used animation, animated on 3's. You can get away with a lot of shit by animating on 3's. For example, Finn waving his arms going MATHEMATICAL! on 2's might be 20 drawings but an anime character swiping their sword might be eight, but because the former has a more complicated design, you view it as "better".

Not to mention the funding is often coming from different places. CN will give SU a budget who then uses it to pay Rough Draft whereas in Japan, Rough Draft would have to spend the money themselves and then sell it to a network. Not all anime is sakuga, you know.

And if the Japanese Animation Creators Association ever takes off, expect to see a huge fucking shift in animation in anime if studios can no longer loom over their artists head that if they want to eat, they better draw more and more.

>but because the former has a more complicated design, you view it as "better".
Sorry, meant to say "the latter".

Now I'm curious, what are your other works?

mlp porns. albeit i'm spreading out into other series now.

>mlp porns. albeit i'm spreading out into other series now.
I fucking hope so, that sounds like such a waste of talent.

>Sideways perspective and characters standing level with each other.
Why are you bringing this up for? Don't you understand the basic rule of cartooning? 3/4 poses, 2D or 3D, are chosen because it's a much better viewing angle for people. The "profile" shot, like left side of pic related, isn't something as interesting to look at because you're not seeing all the features a person has compared to the front side (like irl, same thing happens due to most of the time you're going to see people from the front, basic familiarity), and that's why seeing things from it's side usually look off. And for that "on level" thing I'm not sure what you're referring to, but if you're saying "perspective", think about how live acting works in theaters, a "2 dimensional" space with back drops and other props to make it "appear" 3D. That's simply why those old Tom and Jerry shows (and many others at that time) were like that, they are, quite literally, a 2D space with back drops (painting backgrounds) layered on top of them to portray 3D space.

It's mainly cheap BECAUSE of lack of skill (or more accurately, misuse of) because instead of spending more time to make animation look better, it's used now to save shittons of money THANKS to puppetshit animation, aka, Flash tweening shit. i.e Flash was something that COULD improve animation with all of its useful tools, but thanks to its native tweening, it just made puppetshit animation a default to fall onto instead of actual, choreographic, animation of the golden era of animation. e.g, Season 1 Johnny Test to Season 2+ Johnny Test.

the thing is i originally started doing it because i wanted other animators to make porn for it (i never did art/animation before i got into pone stuff, it was just boredom while studying and wanting to do some art stuff).

the idea was this: i make crappy animated porn, some better artist/animator comes along, sees my shitty attempts and makes good high quality stuff to show how its done.

at the time i didnt quite understand how few animators there are online who arent working at studiou full time and doing animation work outside of that.

>It's the reason why we are able to make a living doing animation.
You mean South Koreans are able to. Or as much of a living as Japanese animators.

>Most Japanese animators put up with the work conditions because they don't have a choice.
They have the choice of not working as animators. They also have the choice of making animation independently, which many people have.

>Anime has similar ways of cutting back
Of course. Those techniques are a fundamental part of anime. So fundamental that even Miyazaki, who disliked television animation, kept using the same techniques all the way to The Wind Rises. But anime is also influenced by cinema, and the result is that you can't necessarily tell where labor-saving ends and artistic choice begins. Pans across scenery, shots of empty spaces or objects, actors standing still and close-up shots of body parts etc. are also seen in live action films.

It was realized from the start that television animation isn't going be able to maintain the animation practises of shorts and features, so they didn't even try and instead developed a different approach to animation. Although American TV animators were faced with the same problem, they just kept trying to be as much like Disney as possible and are still trying to this day. Anything less than consistent 24 FPS animation is a a mark of failure, compromise, shame and even laziness. The quality of the animation doesn't even matter, it just needs to be as high FPS as possible because that's just what animation is all about. Framerate.

>because the former has a more complicated design, you view it as "better".
It is better. Animation is a series of still images deliberately constructed one at a time, and if you stop staring at the framerate like you were playing a video game and actually think about what frames you're using you can get away with much fewer of them. It can even be necessary to use fewer of them when you want to convey fast motion.

Furry porn artists in general are pretty solid at their craft.
Which is a shame because I don't wanna yiff in hell.

I always found it more frustrating when there's an artist you like that draws your fetish extensively but rarely the specific stuff that gets you off.

>whereas in Japan, Rough Draft would have to spend the money themselves and then sell it to a network
In Japan most studios are contracted and paid by a production committee to produce a show. Even if the studio is in charge of the project they'll put together a committee or otherwise seek outside funding (maybe there are rare cases where they financed everything themselves).

>Not all anime is sakuga, you know.
Sakuga as a slang term means high quality/interesting animation. I'm not sure you what you mean by it here.

>And if the Japanese Animation Creators Association ever takes off, expect to see a huge fucking shift in animation in anime if studios can no longer loom over their artists head that if they want to eat, they better draw more and more.
If it goes down like in America, there won't be an anime industry anymore.

>Why are you bringing this up for?
It's as simplistic as animation gets and it's been the norm for a hundred years.

>3/4 poses, 2D or 3D, are chosen because it's a much better viewing angle for people.
And yet I don't see cinema using it.

>And for that "on level" thing I'm not sure what you're referring to
I mean they're standing on exactly the same imaginary line going across the screen, instead of some characters being closer to the camera and others farther away from it.

>think about how live acting works in theaters, a "2 dimensional" space with back drops and other props to make it "appear" 3D. That's simply why those old Tom and Jerry shows (and many others at that time) were like that, they are, quite literally, a 2D space with back drops (painting backgrounds) layered on top of them to portray 3D space.
Yes, they are thinking of the animation as if it was a stage play. I am questioning the fact that this has been the norm for a century.

You know what's the worst hell? Searching for a fetish on e621 and sites like that and the top upvoted/results are your own work and you cant get off to it.

>Flash was something that COULD improve animation with all of its useful tools
And digital animation does if you don't use Johnny Test as the flagship show.
>Kick Buttowski
>Wander Over Yonder
>TURBO Fast
>Motorcity
>Loud House
>Jimmy Two Shoes
>Lauren Faust's Horse Races Show
>Foster's Home

Just to name a few are well animated shows that rely heavily on puppeting. Even Rick and Morty, while not visually outstanding, utilizes its digital aspect outstandingly by having episodes like Total Rickall and A Rickle in Time which simply could not have been done in a timely manner without the use of puppet models and easy comping.

But sure, if you only focus on things like Mr. Pickles and think shows like that have the same level of passion, budget, and length of time to create as something like Star Vs, then yeah, Flash and Toonboom is total shit and makes absolutely nothing good ever and somehow ruined TV animation. Because it's not like the shift from movies to TV is the thing that killed quality.

All of those shows looks like fucking shit though and are inferior to traditionally animated products.
Find me any show animated in Flash/digitally that looks as good as this.

>comparing western animation to anime

Find me a clip from a traditionally-animated western tv show that looks as good as anything from Wakfu, dumbass.

Because animators in japan are literally paid slave wages, worse than fast food workers. They only do it cause they love it and it's why its still FBFd there (but on 3's and 4s now). Modern day anime doesnt have that level of animation on twos/ones.

Western shows like that only existed in the 90s.
At least despite being paid like shit, they care far more about their product than most westerners today. Their dedication alone to a low paying craft is far more amazing than anything the west has put out in the past 15 years.

They animate on twos all the time, and occasionally on ones.

Something that's different compared to the 80s and 90s is that almost everything's on TV now, and that puts limitations on the animation that high end OVAs and movies didn't have. But on the other hand digital production has sped things up dramatically and the production quality of TV anime has increased tremendously. Shorter shows are also better for production quality.

If I remember correctly in-between animators are paid less than key animators, and as animators become more experienced they also get faster which improves their pay.

OVAs and movies are way better than the garbage TV shows we get though.

Not many japanese animation studios do. Trigger does for TV episodes, i can't think of anyone else whos on ones/twos. Everyone else for tv is 3's/4s and twos/onse for anime movies/ovas.

KyoAni animates entirely on twos for their TV shows and ones for their movies.

Fair enough, i totally forgot about them once kon ended.

Post-war Disney budgets went drastically down along with quality. Golden Age Disney (Pre WW2) was very costly for its time. Every single animator had 3 assistants, every single inking line and color layer was done by hand. And thats counting the fact animators wages were criminally low even for the time.

Nowadays what makes 3D more costly than 2D is the development in technology, like for instance Frozens very impressive snow physics. The animation itself is relatively cheap and cost-efficient in comparison to high quality 24 fps traditional animation.

no

yes

But at the same time most of the animator giants think all the advances in computers and 2d animation is a good thing. Any animator worth his salt wont complain if theres a way to make the many tedious parts of his job less time-consuming without sacrificing quality. And drawing straight into a computer program removes several tedious tasks completely.

You don't even watch modern anime. You have no idea what you're talking about.

There's nothing unusual about animating on twos. You can see it in virtually any show.

No they don't. They vary their framerate like everyone else. There's twos, threes and ones in Disappearance for example. Animating entirely or mostly on ones would be fantastically time-consuming and I'm not sure if any anime movie or OVA has ever done it. Akira was mostly on twos.

It may look like something is on ones, twos or threes but when you framestep through the video you may see that it actually isn't. For example in sakugabooru.com/post/show/24921/ the slow motion shot at 0:42 seemed to me at first like it was on ones, but it isn't. It's on twos.

>Animating entirely or mostly on ones would be fantastically time-consuming

Not to mention some scenes actually look better on twos than ones, thats what Disney studio discovered during its golden era. Human eye is weird like that. Proper timing of action is more important than rigid fps.

>You don't even watch modern anime. You have no idea what you're talking about.
But I do you dumb faggot. The quality isn't that good despite what most sakugafags think. The writing is absolutely horrendous. Only thing I'm looking forward to is the inevitable BDrip of shinkai's new movie.

If 3D animation were more cost-effective than 2D animation, then I'm sure we would see more of it used in TV shows in America.

>But I do you dumb faggot.
But you don't you dumb faggot. Even if you do, you are replacing everything you see with memes and narratives and therefore effectively not watching anything. In other words, you might watch something like 91 Days and then go "Wow why isn't there ANY anime that isn't moeshit?" Then you watch Tales of Zestiria and you're like "Fuck literally every show is now some harem light novel shit, what happened to anime?" You are either a liar or mentally ill. Pick one.

>Implying 2D can't look like shit
Huckleberry Hound is right fucking above you, pal.

91 days is fucking terrible though, as well as Tales.
Only movies are good anymore, we're in a generation of over saturated LN adaptations that all fucking suck.

Well, Paperman was pretty successful (granted, it majorly helped that it was attached to Smash-It Steve). If Disney can get the tech they used to make CGI look like hand-drawn animation to be more cost-effective, I could see 2D animated feature films possibly making a comeback in that way.

That's some lame humblebrag.

Its really not because its a lesser popular fetish and only a few people draw it.

I don't want CG mimicking 2D though.

>Flash v. Toonboom

I had to use Toonboom last semester for a Narrative Storytelling course and let me tell you I kinda wanted to commit seppuku so I wouldn't recommend it. Nor would I recommend flash although in all fairness, the professor was pretty clueless so Toonboom may be godlike and I'm just dumb.

>91 days is fucking terrible though, as well as Tales.
Or maybe you haven't seen either of them and you're just saying that to keep up the narrative. Or maybe you did see them but insta-brainwashed yourself into thinking they were shit in order to keep up the narrative.

>we're in a generation of over saturated LN adaptations that all fucking suck.
Meme. Not only does the nature and quality of LN adaptations vary, but there are actually less of them than there are original shows. Case in point: next season on Anichart there's 16 (full length) original shows vs. TWO light novel adaptations.

Digibro even made a video about this.

youtube.com/watch?v=f35QKG5aRME

You may have to settle for it. The film industry is a business like any other, and every industry wants better tech and lower production costs.

You look gay.

Pepe obiously wants dick though desu

It could look really well done (I.e. Paperman, the upcoming Force of Will movie, etc.) but the truly terrible thing is hybrid animation of say, 2D backgrounds with 3D models. Now that I want no part of

>digibro
Now I know to disregard everything you have to say. Fuck off.

>the truly terrible thing is hybrid animation of say, 2D backgrounds with 3D models

So, basically what you're afraid of is animated movies taking the same approach as the classic Resident Evil games.

Yeah, I agree. There's really no good reason to do that anymore.

Toonboom is fucking amazing if you understand it. Palette functions, the nodes, the bone tool is one of the best I've seen. It can make some goddamn powerful shit if you know all the technical elements of it. Just look at what they're doing with "Klaus".

Hahaha. You are grasping at straws. This is not an argument. You are either talking out of your ass because you don't actually watch anime or you are mentally ill. And in either case you are wrong.

Fuck off back to MAL, dumb moefaggot.

But it is. Bad quality motion-tween 2d animation with talking heads is more cost-efficient than 3D. But a full feature 2d film with good animation is more costly and time consuming than full feature 3D film with good animation.

Toon Boom is just "Photoshop fucked Flash", essentially. Everything still works on vector nodes, but the difference is the working process is designed to be better for hand drawing.

The main feature of Toon Boom is its "brush", you draw a line on the screen, and then Toon Boom creates vector lines AROUND that brush stroke. Usually in Flash and vector in general, you use simple lines where the vector line is in the MIDDLE of the "brush" stroke, making it much clumsier for drawing something.

>The original Resident Evil's Cutscenes
Oh god those were truly horrific

Yet people still do it for some strange reason like in the new Voltron. Don't get me wrong, I love the series but Voltron being CG while everything else is 2D is really jarring at first and still kinda irks me.

I'm not from MAL, and "moefaggot" is exactly the kind of buzzword meme nonsense I expect from people like you.

Not all shows are animated like that.

Disney's budgets have been higher since they started using 3D and eventually switched over completely. I'm not sure about production times, but 3D animation seems like it's pretty slow going even if it makes certain things more convinient and flexible.

It can be done if you hide it well enough. Lion King had plenty of CGI scenes hidden inside the 2d animation, lots of Studio Ghibli movies have minor 3d-effects hidden inside the 2d art, like flowing flags for example.

Antlers in Bambi and Cruella De Vil's car in 101 Dalmatians were done with animators tracing the line on a filmed footage of real life tiny plastic models. Nowadays 3D is used as an aid in a similar way whenever the animation has strict geometric shapes thrown into the mix.

>all these retards arguing over east vs west when western animation barely fucking exists

You faggots are just arguing over japanese slave animators vs korean slave animators. Like holy fuck, it's clear none of you have any idea what the fuck you're talking about, but you act like you have years of experience and knowledge of the animation industry, when the reality is that you're a fat neckbeard who will never get near a job in animation.

I don't want 2D back unless they get rid of those ugly ass digital colours and bring back hand-painted cels.

Anime-Planet is the superior choice faggots.

Disney's budgets have been higher because they've been pioneering new tech along with it. With Tangled it was developing hair and hair physics. In Frozen it was snow and a lot of other things. Not to mention the bloated marketing budgets ever since Princess and a Frog was a disappointment for the studio.

What makes 3D animation more convenient and less time consuming is both the fact you only have to create your model once, and motion capture doing most of the animating for you. Then all the animator has to worry about afterwards is polishing it, adding tiny bits of secondary animation into the mix and making it look more fluid. Theres a reason most studios are doing 3d full length films nowadays with talking animals, because it is more cost-efficient than drawing by hand, not just in talking heads-scenes but also in higher action scenes.

Its like stop-motion, minus actually having to create the props and camera systems in real life.

Nice try guy

Epic argument. The people saying family guy is animated in the west sure know what they're talking about. Truly, these are the experts.

The main difference is that in digital animation there's no limit on the number of colors and using a lot of colors doesn't require much additional labor. Any color that you can see in cel animation you can paint digitally.

Those costs are still part of the production budget because they're part of what they need to do in order to make their movies.

I'm not convinced that 3D animation is cheaper and faster even if you don't have to do any tech development.

No, we should bring back cels anyhow. Apparently all digital animators don't know how to make the best out of the unlimited color usage so obviously we need to regress in order to show them.

animatedstoryboards.com/2d-vs-3d-animation-what-to-pick-for-your-project/

animatorisland.com/why-should-2d-animation-be-abandoned-part-2-plus-why-not/

>In the past, clients and agencies were convinced that 2D animation was cheaper, faster, and easier than 3D animation. While this may have been the case years ago, it just isn’t true anymore.

>In fact, different types of 3D animation offer benefits people think they’re getting with 2D—inexpensive, flexible, fast animation—plus all of the benefits of 3D. 3D animation offers processes that are less expensive due to motion capture technology as well as the overall flexibility of not having to redraw every single thing when a change needs to be made to camera angles, characters, movement, scenery, etc.

>animatorisland.com/why-should-2d-animation-be-abandoned-part-2-plus-why-not/

It isnt rocket-science. CGI is fundamentally less time-consuming way of doing animation. And time is money. 3D requires more investments in pricy hardware like rendering equipment and motion capture technology but in the long run it saves more money when the machines do the bulk of the work for the animators.

>Any color that you can see in cel animation you can paint digitally

But it's damn near impossible to match the unique aspects of painting by hand.

There's a reason why painters still use a brush and canvas instead of a keyboard and mouse, cartoons are art and should be treated as such.

Koe no Katachi and Kimi no na wa both released within the past two months
What is the issue here?

KnK was a flop and Kimo no na wa suffered from every other film Shinkai has made; the writing is shit.

>And yet I don't see cinema using it.
Latest example, pic related.
>I mean they're standing on exactly the same imaginary line going across the screen, instead of some characters being closer to the camera and others farther away from it.
Cherry picking, other episodes plenty of times shows Tom and Jerry running in and out from the background, so unless you're a child, you'd realized how baseless your strawman is.
>Yes, they are thinking of the animation as if it was a stage play. I am questioning the fact that this has been the norm for a century.
Yet for example, anime, doesn't do that. And again, even western based medias doesn't always go to that as well to be a "norm". It's used frequently at times throughout history, but remember when that happens? Cheap, puppetshit animation. As said, although he's right, Flash CAN do this, but no one wants to that uses it because 99% percent that does uses it goes to the puppetshit route or that 1% that does go traditional, comes short and few and are rarely heard of.

Forget the pic, but this is one of the examples of going with that 3/4 view. Most 2D games does this on regular as well (Shantae, Street Figther, etc)

Flash cannot do this first of all, and if it theoretically could, it would just be animated traditionally. Flash is just shit.

The OP was claiming 2D animation disappeared from theaters, whether or not the movies are shit is irrelevant

I'm against the viewpoint that flash cannot be done "traditional style", it's just a canvas like a piece of paper, with a timeline/keyframes all the same thing. It's just no one actually would want to animate like on paper and instead to shit like and instead of .

Theres very little money in animation as is, and even less when you do total FBF which takes 10x the time. Like you linked the cuphead animated frog, its beautiful but the game will sell barely any copie and be forgotten in a week except for hardcore animations nerds.

>sakugabooru.com/post/show/24921/
Is it me or that scene doesn't look very good?

Weebs begin at Calais, huh?

That's a weird conclusion to come to, staring at a lightbox for hours on end also strains your eyes. At least when using a computer you don't need to be in a darkened room. I lost all sense of time while doing 2D animation. It somehow erased all notion of a circadian rhythm from my brain. It's ten years later and my sleep patterns are still totally whack.

This still doesn't explain why 3D animation is rarely seen in American shows, which are produced by people who often don't give a shit about anything except being cheap. So either those people have some considerations other than cheapness or 3D isn't necessarily cheaper.

I'm not sure what unique aspects you mean. The only thing I can think of is that the colors may not look completely even.

Going back to cel animation is never going to happen. Digital production is so much more efficient and powerful that any aesthetic benefits that cel animation has are not even worth considering. And if you want limited colors and grain, those can be done.

KnK has not flopped, and your opinion of KnNw's writing quality has no bearing on the issue of 2D animation on the big screen.

>Forget the pic, but this is one of the examples of going with that 3/4 view. Most 2D games does this on regular as well
They're games, not movies. Games have different considerations than movies.

>Cherry picking
It's a very consistent feature that you see all the time. I didn't say it occurs 100% of the time.

>Yet for example, anime, doesn't do that.
I know it doesn't. Because it's based on cinema. But in American animation it's a constant presence. A short made a hundred years ago uses the exact same style that you see all the time in modern shows.

It's not that great, aside from that slow-mo shot. The choreography is silly, for one.

KnK has flopped, and thank god for that. KyoAni is shit.
Now fuck off back to wherever you belong.

Ah, so you're one of those anti-KyoAni mememasters who has probably never even seen anything they've made.

Probably not anytime soon, but Zootopia finally convinced me that cg isn't trash anymore.

>the truly terrible thing is hybrid animation of say, 2D backgrounds with 3D models.
The opposite is far superior. I honestly feel it's the inflexibility of the camera that eventually turned animators away from 2D animation. If you think of the complicated mixed stuff Disney did in the 90s, like the dance scene from Beauty and the Beast, or the scenes in the trees in Tarzan, it's pretty clear they'd eventually come to the conclusion "this would be even easier if we had the characters be CGI too".

This doesn't look good.

You're out of your fucking mind.

It really isn't.

I don't get why we haven't had any shows that look like old Hanna Barbera cartoons, in terms of extra frames here and there, rougher, a less smooth frame count, less clean looking frames and backgrounds, etc.

With how animation is produced now, getting it to look rough takes extra work.

>any aesthetic benefits that cel animation has are not even worth considering

From a business standpoint, sure because it costs too much and takes too long.

But I like to believe that one day a passion project will come to fruition and bring back another golden age.

At least get more thought to your shitpost, shithead.
With that said, I think this looks interesting for something in 3D, but as I say this, I wish the way that door opened fit with the frame of the man's movements, it looked out of place thanks to that. But I quite like it, more interesting than the 60 FPS Disney shit people lap up.
>They're games, not movies. Games have different considerations than movies.
That's not a strawman, where's your citation?
>It's a very consistent feature that you see all the time. I didn't say it occurs 100% of the time.
>It's a very consistent feature that you see all the time
>This means not 100%
You're going to have to backpedel, you're conflicting yourself. Say it happens, as I said before, FREQUENTLY. Read.
>Anime is based on cinema, yet Americuck doesn't do it because "tradition"
>This is a defense, when on one case that's not even always true, and the other is when it does happen, it's apparently passable because "tradition"
Your "tradition" is the reason why animation in the west is failing today, user. Just because the WB era was a thing after the "beginning era" doesn't mean Mericuck can just go "fuck that noise, let's tweenshit EVERYTHING."

>the dance scene from Beauty and the Beast

Wasn't that recycled from Sleeping Beauty?

Fuck off autismo. You act like you understand animation at all but you obviously lack any sort of knowledge and experience.

>Fuck off autismo.
This isn't a argument.

I never said it was.

Everything will be fine once Sigfried comes out.

I think 2D animation was, for American animation, just a half-implemented stopgap measure on the way to 3D animation, even if nobody knew it was coming.

Maybe someone will make it as a passion project, but that's not going to bring about any golden age unless everyone else follows suit. Which they won't.

>That's not a strawman, where's your citation?
What?

>You're going to have to backpedel, you're conflicting yourself.
Where did I contradict myself? Saying that something is a consistent feature seen all the time does not mean that it's seen 100% of the time.

>This is a defense, when on one case that's not even always true, and the other is when it does happen, it's apparently passable because "tradition"
Where are you getting the idea that I'm defending American animation? From the start I have criticized it.

Yes there was some animation copied from Sleeping Beauty, but assuming you read more of my post than just the eight words you quoted, I would have thought you would be able to infer I was instead talking about the shots with the CGI backgrounds. No matter how you try to wrap your tiny brain around it, this animation could never have been sourced from Sleeping Beauty. Why are you in this thread?

...

Flash can be utilized to great advantage, yet so many shows don't do it.
Falling back on motion tweening and the vector pen tool is a failure.
youtube.com/watch?v=X-R5i61iCN0

here's a movie that did flash great.

What about this kind of animation?
youtube.com/watch?v=ASsvC0pHic8

no it didn't
that movie was still animated traditionally

It's coming at it from the other side, really, isn't it. Like, traditional animation comes in varying forms of quality, but overall you can do all sorts with the performance but the actual quality of the drawing may suffer, in that keeping a character looking consistent is difficult, of course when you talk about a studio like Disney, it's both the acting and the draftsmanship that was better than anywhere else.

But with things like what you've posted, it's sort of working backwards. We have a very exacting quality of image. The characters will rarely look off model, but the animation itself is very rigid and mechanical, and in some circumstances this can be a real limitation. It takes a lot of work to get them looking as alive as even a far simpler cartoon.

They used Flash. It worked. Get off your high horse.
vimeo.com/89121480

>Max Landis is working on a script for a Pepe Le Pew movie. I don't know if the film is going to be 2D animated but there's a chance.

Its being written by fuckboi landis, its already dead.

Except cartoons from the 90s were outsourced to japan.

cel shading something to look 2d is needlessly complicated, a style like paperman´s would be really easy to pull off on paper without caring about one million settings, why not just do it in 2d to avoid all the hassle?

man that one was great on pencil form, why did they added all that unnecesary bloom?

Because that shit actually happens when it's cold. The light seems starker, more blinding.

I've always been baffled by how sunglasses are a summer thing. The sun seems brighter and spends more time near the horizon (i.e.: in your eyeline) in the winter months than in summer.

Disney's short films are always about experimentation. In this case, they wanted to see how traditional animators would deal with rotoscoping CG. It's ass-backwards but whatever, their money.

Flash will always look like shit.

Because nobody uses it right.

So if no one can use it right, there's no reason to use it.

>In this case, they wanted to see how traditional animators would deal with rotoscoping CG.
That's... completely wrong. It's not rotoscoping, Did you just look at it once and just assume you had it all figured out without checking?

youtube.com/watch?v=84rl-T2yIls

It's CGI animation with some drawings layered onto the keyframes, and the technical challenge is in having the computer figure out what to do with those lines for the rest of the animation. They're not testing the traditional animators' rotoscoping abilities at all.

Forgot my webm, it's in that youtube video.

When will western animation be as good as this again?

Looks Japanese to me.

oops posted the wrong webm
here's the correct one

Is that Soviet animation?

yes

By any chance, without actually dropping any names here, do you go by a name that starts with a T and ends in a Y?

Man this sort of shit never stops being cool. I love breakdowns like that.

Christ that looks like it took ages to do

youtube.com/watch?v=jIr7cs6eEAs

>20 minutes of that type of animation

Gotta say it was sort of relieving to see a lot of it were repeated frames with just simple camera movements because that would have been hell and a half otherwise.

if you've seen most of petsrov, you would know that he uses it that style for all of his work

I'm not totally familiar with his work though I know I've seen it before. The sheer technique alone is keeping me watching and I can't believe how smooth the bit in the sand was. I'll have to look at more of this shit.

Sunlight is a thing you know.

post processing is garbage and ruins the original image

when will animation be fun again?

Well it ruins it when it's bad post processing. Kind of like how people only notice bad CGI.

>top: with sunglasses
>bottom: without sunglasses
The bloom makes sense since the focal point is the girl and not the background.

I don't think so. At least not from Disney.

CGI is the business now, and it is fucking terrifying how good it's gotten now. The 2016 Jungle Book almost blurred the fucking line.

>almost blurred the fucking line
You can literally do it in seconds in any editor.

Dis guy

WOW. YOUR AN IDIOT

Space Jam 2, maybe?

Did you watch Sausage Party

If there is hope, it lies in the French.

Everybody get up

the first movie wasn't even good though

>stripperbell
>>no stripping
Erotic dancing is not the same as stripping you fucking idiots.

desu sir, I feel like financially animators these days have to join some sort of studio (even small ones) eventually since there are few ways to really monetize the effort of 2d animation these days without some sort of backing to get the commercial work, and help with development. Sure you can make anything you want but reality is time and money.