Why is cgi animation popular when 2d animation is objectively better?

they still do though, just check sakugabooru retard

Christ I hate this board.

Because studios don't cater to autists like you and most people prefer 3D.

Kys

Don't respond to obvious bait, you fucking idiots.

It's cheaper and faster

if you watch cgi movies chances are they're for small children making you the autist
checkmate nigger fag!

Assembled in China.

>"Oh shit I got called out and I don't have any evidence to back up my original statement."
>"Uh, um, uhhhhhhh..."
>"I know! Maybe if I trick him into lurking some other website he'll forget all about my post and I can get away with being the ignorant retard that I am!"
>"Yeah, that'll totally work......."
If you wanted to be nothing more than the ignorant retard that you are then you could have just not replied to me. Now everybody knows you are one.

>It's cheaper
It actually isn't.

Okay now you're just retarded.
Kill yourself and fuck off back to Cred Forums.

>cucked
what the fuck does that even mean, fuck off back to Cred Forums

A better question is why do we have these threads with contrarians/hipsters whining about how much better 2d is when no one really gives a shit about the medium except contrarians/hipsters?
A better question is, why will this thread get 500+ replies when we've had it 2000 times over the past 5 years.

for 10 cents a unit
the other 99% of your money went to rich americans

haha cucked as hell

Nick looks cool/hot here in this picture.
Wonder what a 2d Zootopia would've been like.

>le who cares about natural animation when you can have elaborate sets of computers make 3d models and motion tween them to move around like puppets
hahaha cgi is a gay fag medium that more and more people are realizing is a shitty fad

>hot
kys

> euro cuck
> forgets that many Americans appreciate 2d animation
There are times when I wish specific foreigners were killed by bin Laden rather than us americans

>americans
>giving a shit about 2d animation
>do nothing about it anyways
lol

Yeah, people who are opinionated on mediums are just contrarians or hipsters or whatever vague dehumanizing label I can shout out.

Fucking computer elitist faggot

Chill out, iPleb.

I don't see one being better over the other, and in many ways they can co-exist or even benefit off each other.

There are certain things you can do with 3d you can't do in 2d without it being extremely difficult and expensive to pull off.

On the other hand 2d often has better design and expression to it that is also extremely difficult to capture with 3d.

In a world of cheap cgi films that all look the same it's easy to forget that just twenty years ago there was an ocean of cheap, 2d animation films that all looked the same.

The only reason the dominance of animation has shifted is because 3d is now cheaper than 2d. A good looking 2d film would probably perform better in the box office than a good looking 3d movie if the writing and design were better, but the fact is that good looking 2d animation now takes more time and therefore money than good looking 3d because there are less people who can do it.

On the other end, 2d doesn't always look as good as 3d (just compare any made-in-flash 2d cartoon to a 3d cartoon out right now) and cheap 2d will often look far worse than cheap 3d (unless you're going to the absolute bottom of the barrel).

Both animation types have their strengths and weaknesses, and it's easy to forget that in a time when 3d is so much stronger than 2d. It's easy to be blinded by nostalgia when there isn't much going on with 2d anymore.

>There are certain things you can do with 3d you can't do in 2d without it being extremely difficult and expensive to pull off.
Like what? Seriously, what can't you do in 2D that can only be done in 3D?
It's not difficult or expensive to pull off, all you need is a good key animator.

>if you watch animated television shows chances are they're for small children
wooooooooooooow
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW

Woah buddy, that's a little harsh. I don't think you know jack.

Certain perspective shots and movements are simply harder to pull off in 2d without it looking weird or dumb.

I do agree with you that a good key animator is often all you need to make a good looking 2d film without it breaking the bank, but that's starting to seem harder to pull off as time goes on.

It's a riskier venture these days to be a dedicated 2d animator, and it usually takes more time and money for it now simply because it's not being done as often anymore. It's just supply and demand, if there are less 2d movies being made, then the few that will be made will cost more just because there are less people who can do it.

I'm not trying to defend 3d, I'm just saying that in many cases 2d is no better. There is no "objectively better" medium, else-wise you would the other mediums totally disappear.

>Cheaper and faster
Wew lad, good meme

>posts concept art from the current pinnacle of 3D animation

But seriously, I used to be in the same camp until I saw this movie. Making good 3D animation is about focusing on the little details. It's amazing how effective body language and eye movement is with CGI because you can do so much with it.

You do realizing you're parodying yourself right?

Which type of perspective shots? I'm pretty sure it's possible to do everything entirely in 2D and make it look 3 dimensional, the only problem is the amount of animators that know how to do intensive perspective shots isn't that great.
2D will always be superior to 3D.

I like to rename the filenames of pictures to image.jpg just to trigger you autistic fucks.

The reason why they use it is because it's easier to manipulate.
Once you make all of the assets, it's just a matter of camera angles and character rigging.
If you want the camera to dolly in a certain way without changing what the characters are doing, you can just do that. With 2d, you just have to redraw the entire thing. It will have a higher upfront cost, but a lower cost of use.
This is why we keep hearing stories about how Frozen was completely remade in two months, and Toy Story was scrapped three times before they settled on the final version.

This. The cost of a fuckup is far less with 3D.

why would you fuckup with 3d in the first place
unless you're retarded, this shouldn't be a problem

It's not even just for fuckups, the script is able to change later into the dev cycle and not be an issue for the final product. If a particular scene gets rewritten, they can move in and edit it accordingly.
Plus, it allows them to keep all the stages of the "animating" in house. They won't have to send scenes over seas and wait for them to return. They just need computer banks to render shit.

Nearly every time I see such a statement it's always the same sort of animation sequence with airplanes and missiles, or in this case, swords. The same goes for those "post animation" threads recently.

They are still well animated though. What the fuck do you want, character acting? Explosions? Driving? I have everything.

With 3D CGI animation, the models are reusable and so when you want to make a new scene, you only have to do half the work.

With 2D drawn animation, it is much cheaper to prep and start the animation process, especially with Flash being used for the actual animating.

There's a reason that we're seeing a lot of movies with additional original tie-ins (like shorts, second movies, promotional material, etc.) are using 3D animation while a bunch of cartoons, which might not last past a single season, are using 2D animation. There's no reason to break the bank on setting up the 3D models if you are a small studio and this is a quick project. Conversely, if you are a huge studio and can pretty much guarantee that you'll re-use the models, then taking the time to make them in 3D allows the animation process to go much faster.

Everyone's playing "follow the leader" with Pixar. The moment a traditionally animated picture blows up the box office, they'll start churning those out again.

3d
>easier to animate
>faster to animate
>provides more realistic visuals and animation
>motion capture tech makes animation even faster and easier
>certain nuances in 2d animation (stretching) is more difficult to do in 3d

2d
>harder to animate
>extremely time consuming
>animation once finished cannot be tweaked as easily as 3d
>yes, aesthetically pleasing, but costly.

>Whines about user being elitist
>In an argument between whether 2D is better than 3D

sauce on that image, pls

nvm im an idiot reverse image search

The amount of animators alone who can do these things is the primary reason 2d animation is so expensive now.

It's a crying shame that 2d is dying, but there is no such thing as a superior medium. There are charms to 3d that aren't present in 2d and vice versa.

2D > 3D unless you're a retarded pleb.

>elitist
you're the one with a bitten fruit on the back of his phone, why didn't you get a simple Android?

Because teaching people how to draw is harder than teaching them how to rig, and right now the industry is in full Maximum Profit, Minimum Effort mode.

>what can't you do in 2D that can only be done in 3D?
Real physics and weight.

>2d animation is objectively better
Fuck no. Well done CGI is WAY better than 2D

youtube.com/watch?v=BCr7y4SLhck

>blizzard
into the trash it goes

I wanna semi-agree. They both have their own forms of beauty. An amazingly well-done piece of CG totally immerses me into their world because I can see the moving horizon, I can imagine Toothless in my world because the lighting that hits his scale textures feels so familiar to me. It feels more beautiful to me because the textures and lighting is "familiar", I've seen it, it's real because it's trying to mimic elements of reality. Zootopia animals feel like actual animals, down to their little ticks.

But amazingly done 2D makes me happy, if that makes sense. The way Tarzan moves or the cartoony way you see Darla Dimple in Cats Don't Dance zipping around the screen. I'm having fun, I admire that someone did this, I can feel the artist behind the pencil because there was an artist behind the pencil.

Yes, there was an artist behind the screen when animating a CG sequence, but the "artists touch" is loss simply because that is how the medium works with the passing off of models. So I end up never thinking about the "artist' but 100% just the art. But with 2D, my mind is split between both 50-50.

It's up to you guys to decide which feeling like you like better.

>They both have their own forms of beauty
This.

>animating in 2d
>your only objective limitations are digital refinement
>animating in 3d
>your objective limitations are digital refinement, processing power, and rendering software

>want to draft a character gesture in 2d
>draw it out in 10-15 minutes
>want to draft a character gesture in 3d
>map it out in 45-60 minutes

Waaaaay too real. This is nice, though.

>Real physics and weight.
Are you kidding? Weightlessness has been a major criticism of Sony, Blue Sky, and Dreamworks' 3D movies for years now?

>kung fu panda 1-3, How to train your dragon, megamind, zootopia, etc.
>Weightlessness

You have to go back

>draft gesture in 2d

Then you have to draw the next pose, and the next one, and the next one...

With 3D you just create a model and play with it.

Guess wich one will save you more money?

So I want to become a 3D animator.

How could I start??

2D of course.

>Frozen was completely remade in two months
And it fucking shows. Awful low poly environments everywhere. Hard to believe it was done by the same studio as Zootopia

...