> Walt Disney Animation Studios Chief Creative Officer and Wish executive producer/writer Jennifer Lee told IGN in a recent interview that in the early stages of development several years ago, using traditional 2d animation was seriously discussed.
>“What happens in hand-drawn is that you have the incredible hand of the artist, but also limitations in what you could do on screen,” Lee explained. “What happened in CG is you'd have incredible, boundless opportunities, visually, that elevated it — even to the point for some — into realism"
>Lee admitted that even after they committed to using computer animation to make Wish, they did consider using traditional animation to bring the character Star to life. Ultimately, she said 2D had too many limitations in terms of camera movements and characterization.
https://www.ign.com/articles/wish-filmmakers-considered-going-full-2d-for-disneys-100th-anniversary-heres-why-they-didnt
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
>2D has too many limitations
sounds like a skill issue
It's so laughable. Her own fricking studio did thing like the spiralling camera in BatB.
Even 3d animation benefits massively from using 2d techniques.
Yes, but that was all James Baxter.
>the spiralling camera in BatB
Do you mean the part where the backgrounds are CG while the characters are animated by hand? That's exactly what she said in OP's quote; the camera movements have a lot of limitations in 2D animation. The problem isn't the character animation, it's the backgrounds around the characters. If you want to do ambitious action scenes where the camera moves around freely in your scenery, it's a ton of work to change the angle at all when you're animating each scene by hand. That's why they commonly use CG backgrounds for such scenes. And if everything else in the scene is already CG, what's the point of making the characters 2D-animated? They're just gonna visually clash with the backgrounds. Why not animate them with CG as well?
I'm not totally sure what Lee means about "characterization" having limitations in 2D, though. If I had to guess, maybe she means that changing a character model or its animations is easier than making changes to a 2D-animated character? Like let's say you write Elsa as a villain but change your mind later; maybe she means it's less work to update her character model from onion Elsa to white-haired Elsa and turn her evil smirks into gentle smiles, or stuff like that? With 2D animation, you have to know exactly how the scene needs to go. If you change your mind later, you'll need to redraw stuff from the scratch.
That's a good example too. The background in the Quasimodo scene is CG because the camera needed to move around, and it's too much work to do it by hand. If they had done it by hand, they might've ended up with another Thief and the Cobbler; a skillfully made movie that took decades to animate and wasn't particularly successful.
The real solution is obviously to handle the linework f background transformations with CG polylines and then hand draw over it.
Thanks for actually knowing animation and the pipeline anon.
>in terms of camera movements and characterization.
Literally means "we can't imagine this perspective without computers"
Based. In reality they just want to churn out slop every year. Disney has talent, but they're being wasted.
Literally is, nobody can do 2D animation anymore. Even in Japan a lot of animators have to have 3D artists make models of characters for them to trace over for scenes and 99% of everything else is CG or other shit. 2D animation is a largely mostly dead art.
If wish fails, do you think they’ll finally take the plunge and try 2d again
Nah, they still have their heads too far up their asses for that. But hey, hopefully I'm wrong.
What would it take for disney to finally try 2d again?
They will never try 2d animation again
They will close the studio before trying it again
2d films (non-disney ones) consistently achieving mainstream success in America. That, or some guy who's actually passionate about 2d animation takes over the studio. Either way, it's very unlikely.
They already did recently with the Covid Goofy shorts and the short that’s suppose to come before this movie.
For Dreamworks, Illumination, Sony, etc to drop 3D first and prove that 2D films can still sell to an American market.
For now, you have to settle for movies from Japan and Europe.
For another studio to have a massive 2D hit that outperforms Disney
Maybe Universal/Illumination or Sony take a chance. Maybe Gunn gets something done with a DCAU at WB.
A scheme to intentionally make a deliberately badly performing 2D to try and convince people that they don't want 2D.
Disney had one of the biggest Box Office failures in history last year with Strange World and hasn't budged an inch. I think if a rival studio managed to use 2d and compete directly, they might. But right now, doesn't seem likely.
Strange World didn’t fail because it was 3D. It failed because it took the trappings of being a pulp sci fi adventure (at least in its advertising) which has limited appeal. Then it delivered a completely gutless “adventure” with strong womyn, the usual generational trauma shit, and also the media kept pushing “gay Black person kid.”
>Strange World didn’t fail because it was 3D.
And Trasure Planet didn't fail because it was 2D. That didn't stop the braindead suits from using it as a scapegoat to abandon hand drawn animation regardless.
Treasure Planet was filled with awkward cost-cutting early CGI though. Same with Pocahontas.
I get the impression that they can't do that, even if they wanted.
They legitimately can’t because there’s just no talent pool to pull from. They’d basically need to restart their 2D division from scratch and train animators to work in their studio environment.
Then what the hell is CalArts for?
It's a place for rich privileged buttholes to send their rich privileged butthole children so they can network with other rich privileged butthole children and get a nepo job after they graduate.
It sure as frick isn’t about teaching the technical skills required to animate competently.
Do they even have 2D animators anymore?
Why would they? The only people who care about 2D this deeply are nostalgiagays
…their entire audience?
Their audience is children. Grown adults weren’t the ones going to see frozen in droves themselves.
If Pixar fails, do you think they'll try normal societal values again
There's no advantage over 2D anymore. It used to be 3D was easier and the cool new thing and traditional animation was costly and time consuming. Now 2D could easily be done digitally and they're just choosing not to. I'd say it's far too late to repair the damage to the company. Most people I've met offline hate Disney now. You just wouldn't have seen that a decade ago.
>do you think they’ll finally take the plunge and try 2d again
Not them but someone will.
>Fixed ends up being successful
>but it leads to crap like Rick and Morty getting theatrical movies
Double edged sword
Rick and Morty isn't a real cartoon. It's writer-driven. Fixed is something totally different.
Well the audience that obsesses over 2D animation are manchildren
I WILL blame Genndy for the total collapse of 2d animation for the next 30 years if this fails.
>blaming one person in 2023 when the industry started trending this was starting with the success of Shrek
>But we showed his butthole.
Are 2D animated films even profitable anymore? The last 2D film I can remember was the Bobs Burgers movie and it bombed tremendously in the box office.
Maybe making a 2D movie out of a bland series that’s never on the Simpsons/SP level of popularity was the smartest movie anyone could make.
Pic related pulled in ~$320 million on less than 1/10th the budget.
Ironically, it seems like China has far more of an appreciation for 2D films than America does these days.
Wasn't it stuck in production hell for a long time? No wonder the end result felt underwhelming.
Wolfwalkers could have been a huge hit if it wasn’t on fricking Apple TV of all places
Loved Wolfwalkers, wish I could have seen it in theaters.
Demon Slayer made like 50 million in America.
It's the opposite
"We made a princess movie that looks like a mix between 2d and 3d but it bombed, this clearly shows that 2d is cancer to animation and we should have stuck to 3d"
Meanwhile, anime movies steal our money.
Nobody can do hand drawings nowdays in Hollywood.
That would still be 4 or so years in the future
We haven’t even touched the limits of 2d animation and what we can do with it. I’ve seen directing styles and techniques in japanese and european animation from 50 years ago that have yet to be replicated in american 2d animation. Limitation my ass.
>she said 2D had too many limitations in terms of camera movements and characterization
No one take away her undo button unless you want to see her cry...
Now I want to see Wish. I bet there’s going to be some mind blowing direction that simply couldn’t be done in 2D.
Cope
This means they can't scrap everything and cobble together something last minute like they've had to do for every movie she's directed because she has no fricking clue how to run a project or even form a coherent idea as a starting point
>2d has too many limitations
>It literally has no limitations because human sight is 2d and everything you could conceivably imagine ever seeing can be rendered in 2d animation with enough effort
>human sight is 2d
If you only have one eye.
It's still only 2D, your brain just processes the two separate 2D images into a single composite
Human sight is 2D, our brains merely interpret in a way as to give an illusion of a 3D environment. When you grab a cube and put it in front of you you can only see part of it instead of the entire cube at once for example, we do not see it in a 3D way.
>everything you could conceivably imagine ever seeing can be rendered in 2d animation with enough effort
Try 2D animating a photorealistic human and then get back to me on that.
Why? Disney isn't animating photorealistic humans in 3d either.
And you could still do it, it'd just be diminishing returns to have that level of fidelity. If you can draw pic related in 2d, you can do it hundreds of times to animate it.
That’s why she needs to be out. She has no place or business to be working in WDAS to tell how to do their animations.
Disney needs to fire this b***h and revise any projects in production by the studio to edit all of her taint out.
How did she get to this position? Did she used to be competent?
She directed Frozen (along with the director of Tarzan) and wrote Frozen (while being told what to write by Lasseter). Lee had to do all the promotional interviews and such because her co-director's son was killed in a car crash.
Sounds like they were grooming her to be the next head, shame she came out subpar.
That is NOT how women have been reaching this kind of position, anon.
Lasseter got fired for inappropriately touching women and Disney wanted a woman to replace him so they could save face. Lee had only been at WDAS for a few years and barely had any animation experience but she co-directed their mega hit Frozen so they chose her
It’s kinda funny how companies will torpedo their future to look progressive
And she won’t get fired either because of this, interviews and articles are praising the girlboss nature of her and they won’t take away something seen ad “empowering” so the studio will rot until it closes
It’s incredible how forced all this “anger” is
The anti-lee schizo aside, this is very bad PR and even twitter is roasting them for being this ignorant when everywhere else is doing traditional just fine
you incels need to touch grass
t.Jennifer Lee
If Disney needs a female to take over the studio, I'll offer my services. All projects will need to be reviewed, many will likely return to the drawing board or outright be cancelled. The studio and the entire company is having a crisis of quality. Nothing should be announced until we know the project is going to do well and won't require overtime. I'd also implement a small team of traditional hand-drawn animators to produce a movie once or twice every decade.
Yeah, this is all bullshit. CG took over because it's easier to make last minute changes than with hand-drawn films. If you don't believe me, look into the production of Frozen 2. Nothing like that can ever happen on a hand-drawn film.
>because it's easier to make last minute changes than with hand-drawn films
>What are undo/redo buttons on digital software like Photoshop?
Reading between the lines I'm pretty sure when she says "limitations in what you could do on screen" she actually means "its harder to remove things that are censored in China and overseas"
That does make sense.
I WISH a homie would.
>mastering the PaperMan engine
homie they shelved that shit along with the one about the eating dog. Disney has already settled on their 3d "brand" and the reality is they're gonna stick to it. The "mastering" was already done by the time the short came out.
Frozen and Zootopia will be hits and that will be enough, but the Pixar slate might actually bomb
Frozen II killed the Frozen franchise.
Lee's just covering her ass that all the talent left and the people left behind are unqualified diversity hires like her.
Looks like it wasn't the right decision because it looks like shit in the trailer
How much you want to bet that she's actually just aware how useless the schmucks under her are, but can't publicly admit that anything even approaching the quality of Renaissance Era is beyond them?
2D is just too expensive. It's that simple.
This is moronic because as far as I'm aware, none of Disney's newer productions are really doing anything that couldn't be accomplished with the hybridized "painted 2D" that Klaus created. They're not like Pixar where they're constantly pushing new 3D technology and techniques like with Elemental or Soul, Disney CG is just cookie-cutter backwash bullshit borrowed from Pixar. These "limitations" wouldn't exist if Disney just kept training and pushing their 2D artists to be the best in the business, but those standards have given way to various titans of independent animation.
> 2D had too many limitations in terms of camera movements and characterization.
All the shit that premieres at Annecy every year literally disproves this.
>too many limitations in terms of camera movements
STOP BEING LAZY THEN
Why would you post a dogshit unfinished over budget overdue 2d movie to reply to this?
>t. I don’t actually follow animation
Cinemaphile is full of culture war morons that aren’t even interested in art.
Yes, yes we get it. Your flop movie shouldn't be talked poorly about despite it being mediocre as frick
>2D had too many limitations in terms of camera movements
The background is actually 3D reduced to outlines. Quasi is actually 2D though.
The Thief and the Cobbler actually has crazy 2D camera moves you should check out though.
>make 2D animatics for Moana
>re-make the whole stuff in inferior 3D CG
Crazy people.
It's a moronic point to make when 2D animated movies have used 3D backgrounds and camera for decades at this point. Sure, there aren't a lot of James Baxters left in the industry, and animating a 2D character in a 3D space with a moving/spinning camera is hard as frick, but Disney pioneered it.
The only limitations in that equation are her IQ, and that of their diversity hires.
Does she know that you're allowed to mix both? If there's anything good that came out of the Spiderverse.
I just played Paper Mario and wondered why more shows don't do something like this.
>"What happens in hand-drawn is that you have the incredible hand of the artist, but also limitations in what you could do on screen,” Lee explained. “What happened in CG is you'd have incredible, boundless opportunities, visually, that elevated it — even to the point for some — into realism, which is not what we wanted to do. The more important thing to us was to have a way to find technology that can do everything. Connect to the true vision of the artist, but bring in technology that could finally take away limitations."
Treasure Planet did exactly what you wanted to do.
And that movie bombed so what
and so did Strange World, which should also prove that 3D doesnt automatically sell a movie. If all you care about is the numbers then you are just as dumb as Lee is.
>f all you care about is the numbers
How dare a business only care about making money
>Looking at the number
>Not looking into why those numbers exist
This is an executive problem.
That requires intuition. I don't think that's something even AI can have.
2D Animation
>You imagine it
>You draw it
3D animation
>You imagine it
>You acquire a 3D animation engine for $1000s of dollars
>You have to request a model to be made which takes about 2 or more weeks to make
>Have to develop the in engine lighting which could take months or even a year
>Place model into workspace
>Have to rig and move each of the tens of millions of polygons into the action motion you want
>Also have to develop the real time lighting, shadows, etc
What is this b***h on? 2D animation has no limits, only how good the animator is. And since Disney has no good animators nowadays they have to resort to the impossible to frick up but ridiculously expensive group project known as 3D.
>>You acquire a 3D animation engine for $1000s of dollars
Blender is free.
>3D is more programming than actually animating
Really says a lot about the industry, doesn’t it?
also this
This feels like the equivalent of having an old school live action film where you have an artsy director that wants a hand model to sit in front of the actor to hold up the prop so he can get just the shot he wants. But with more steps and equipment to get there.
Or maybe the giant ring prop they used for perspective shots.
I’m not gonna be able to unsee that.
wtf
What’s the confusion?
Can't you use a different camera, or camera position or move it back and zoom? You can do tricks like that in real life to play with perspective. This seems like a we-need-this-done-by-5 solution.
Does it matter? You don’t see her arms stretching in the movie.
Yeah I don't see the problem with the stretched arms. A simple solution to a problem that otherwise would have taken a bunch of fricking around.
It's half a genuine question about how to implement it, half concern that the animators are overworked or just told to "make it work", considering what we get coming out of marvel.
It's standard practice for games to hide wacky shit like this away from the player. Boundary Break is the channel that covers stuff like this. But for movies, I don't know. It doesn't feel right to do. It's meant to be a living, breathing world and doing this breaks that illusion. At least it does now that I know it was done. I'm sure they could have staged the scene in a different way so arm stretch wouldn't have been needed.
>It doesn't feel right to do.
Then you’ve never watched BTS footage of literally any complex movie
>This seems like a we-need-this-done-by-5 solution.
That's exactly why it was the chosen solution and the reason why movies suck now.
You’re genuinely moronic
I’m very glad they didn’t risk 2D animation on a non-white princess again.
Jennifer Lee has too many limitations.
>2D camera is hard!
No excuse for Disney to be skimping out for their 100th anniversary flagship princess movie of the year.
Total rigger death
>too many limitations in terms of camera movements and characterization.
That didn't stop movies like Lion King, Tarzan, Treasure Planet, Spirit, Prince of Egypt, etc.
Deep Canvas singlehandedly proves she's absolutely stuffed to the brim with bullshit.
Don’t those heavily use cg?
Mostly Tarzan and Treasure Planet did. But I mean, Wish is using mostly CG with a few hand drawn aspects. These other movies used mostly hand drawn with a little CG. And the other movies look infinitely better.
What's hand drawn about Wish?
I think some of the lines and features on the characters and backgrounds are hand drawn right?
Lee has a very valid point
Can something as intricate as Skibidi Toilet be made on a daily basis and with that level of movement with traditional handdrawn by one creative individual?
It could not
>Blaming the medium
Absolutely disgusting.
typical of Hollywood.
Is it just me, or is there something off about the art direction? They seem to be going for a cell-shaded thing that evokes 2D Didney, but it just ends up look like 3D with cheap lighting.
The reason studio do 3d and not 2d is simple, 2d requires master craftsman that actually know what they are doing.
It's all about the power you can have over the artist, and good 2d animator are rare and difficult to replace due to their unique pen stroke, thus have leverage against the company.
If a 2d animator gets pissed at the direction or pay, he can frick up your production by refusing to work. good luck finding someone not only as good but who can imitate their style.
If a SoCal or India sweatshop animator slave gets uppity, just replace him. The model, rig, scene, lights, camera angle are still there and can be picked up by the next guy with little problem.
This is basically just her admitting they don't have the talent or skill to do 2D animation well.
Crazy how far we've fallen in just 30 years.
It's also because talented people don't want to work for big companies anymore. There's no prestige to it anymore, the fantasy and magic as been exposed as fake.
I'm a 2d animator, why the frick would I want to get locked in a cubicle drawing souless american creaturas for boomers shareholders who have never held a pencil, doing 4 months of crunch and getting yelled at by incompetent dyed hair Californians and tech bros, all for the average salary of 50k to 70k.
Why do that when I can draw furry porn and make 90k a year from the comfort of my home studio, picking the contracts that I like.
20
the movie looks like I have a low graphics mod installed.
As a white female, they have nothing for us either. Their "women" are either actually male, race swapped to be black or latina for no reason or they are the most toxic and obnoxious self-absorbed entitled b***hes with actresses who did sex acts with studio execs, producers, or directors to get roles.
post breasts with timestamp or GTFO
Wish is going to flop, there is nothing but apathy towards it
>flopgay
like Elemental right?
Anon, Elemental was only saved from being a catastrophic flop thanks to Asia, and Asia no likey black people.
Barely breaking even isn't a good thing for Disney Pixar anon
This will be the moment that made 2D coming back to Disney inevitable. This interview right here.
Look what the first few decades of animation gave us with the limited knowledge and resources we had at the time and tell me I know this person is full of shit because this is what everyone would’ve said 20 years ago when 3d cartoons became the dominant form of animated medium.
I don’t know much about either animation method, especially CG. But isn’t CG the one where it can be difficult to even simply alter a character’s clothing or hair or body, because you have to design their model and then stick with it or make a whole new one, or maybe make a bunch of layers or individual pieces to swap out? Like making a puppet, but on a computer. And making a bunch of different models takes more work than with 2D, where you just draw whatever you want.
I always thought CG sounded like the more limiting method. Sure, with CG you can achieve a higher level of realism, but 2D seems like it allows for a higher level of abstraction and creativity, which seems favorable for a cartoon.
Maybe I’m way off base, or maybe this kinda thing only applies to smaller animation studios and not to the way Disney does it.
This just screams damage control. They guessed audience perspective incorrectly and now they’re coping by throwing the more desirable medium under the bus.
>They guessed audience perspective incorrectly
This describes all of Disney, Hollywood, and even corporate America. There is a HUGE disconnect between corporations and customers. They have no idea what will sell anymore and when to sell it. Bud Light is the most obvious example. Also retail is already started selling Christmas stuff "because competition" (direct quote when my mom asked about it). One time I tried to buy a swimsuit in March for spring break, and they weren't going to start selling swimsuits until months later. Apparently, they sold Halloween cookies in August. They obviously rely way too much on AI, machine learning, and bots. Did they fire all of their market analysts? Or is their hiring software so bad they resort to nepotism and cronyism and DEI rather than people who know business.
Halloween creep has been engineered by Disney and Universal moving their events earlier and earlier.
Why the frick did Disney release a Halloween movie in July? It wouldn't have flopped so much if they released it now.
It was originally gonna be out in March, but now this ultimately means that it'll be on Disney Plus in time for actual Halloween.
That's even worse!
They are under contract to pay certain people involved with making the film according to their box office profits, but not always the same according to streaming service views. They always expected that HM would do better on streaming than in theaters anyway, so they purposefully timed its theater release a couple months sooner than they planned to announce its dump on to streaming, which will be right on time for halloween. Of course they do have the power to put it in theaters and streaming at the same time and during peak demand to maximize customer satisfaction, but that doesn’t maximize profit straight to the company.
Early holiday hype has been a push collectively by all corporations. People shop way more for the holidays and they want to drag out the most lucrative shopping seasons as long as the people will buy.
It's the latter. The c-suite should be shitying their pants due to AI- why should companies even bother with executives when AI will maximize everything without asking for a dime.
You could freeze them. When one of my cousins has a wedding, we spend months filling up a freezer with cookies for the big day.
Theme parks set a lot of trends with Halloween. Japan basically celebrates Halloween now solely because of Tokyo Disneyland doing most of the legwork in meming it into that culture and Universal Studios Japan helped make Halloween for adults a thing there too.
Halloween became a thing in Australia and New Zealand almost solely because of the Simpsons Halloween specials.
>Halloween cookies in August
The decorations are bad enough, but I can’t figure out what the frick they’re thinking doing this with perishable items like food. It’s not like you can save the cookies in a closet for two months until you actually want them.
Not with that attitude
Close to AI and learning bots
They rely on pampered analysts from San Fran, LA, New York, Chicago. And not the suburbs but the actual cities. They are hyper-liberal brats who are insanely out of touch with the rest of the country and the wider world.
So they are the ones who think having a transgender spokesperson for a cheap beer is a good call because their entire circle thinks its great, they won't leave the gentrified parts of the city to see what people actually want
>too many limitations in terms of camera movements
What the frick are they even doing with the camera to justify this bullshit? Has there ever been any sort of wow moment in her movies where she takes advantage of having a virtual camera that has no physical properties and can be made to do whatever you want?
nope. It’s entirely rare for 3d animation to use camera experimentally.
Good 2D is timeless meanwhile Frozen will age like milk.
Frozen already looked like shit on its day of release.
3D is chimp shit for toddlers. I never watch 3D "animation." The reason she's saying that is because 3D is cheap and requires no skill or creativity. It is by definition mass produced goyslop that can be churned out endlessly with zero effort.
relevant
I fricking hate this gif because the example on the left looks no different from the one on the right. It's just run through a squiggle vision filter.
>no timing or spacing
>none of the appendages move in cohesion with eachother
>character remains in a strictly 3/4 perspective
>using squiggle-vision as a crutch to disguise the limited movement (in contrast, EEnE squiggles were used in tandem with dynamic movement)
She's not exactly wrong, anime directors think the same thing. You couldn't do stuff like the Attack on Titan Spiderman scenes that made the show popular or the Kimetsu meme action scenes without CGI.
>You can't do Spider-Man scenes in 2D
>There are multiple 2D Spider-Man animated shows
You mean the ones with literal CG buildings?
No, you can't. They never existed, and Japan is the only country that has a tradition of background 2D animation.
You can, what they mean is that it takes longer and costs more, so it's outside of their budgets.
Just admit that the real limitations are that it's more expensive because it takes longer and you can't find any people talented enough to do it even if you wanted to.
If I wanted realism I would watch a live-action film, this b***h.
Remember when boomers at Pixar were afraid of 3D not selling well? That was before Toy Story was released. Fast forward to now & it's just the opposite. My have the mighty have fallen.
Stupid Bent biggest contribution to Disney was Frozen. No wonder she has shit taste.
>Lion King ‘19
$1,663,075,401
>Frozen II
$1,453,683,476
>Frozen
$1,290,000,000
>Incredibles 2
$1,242,805,359
>Toy Story 4
$1,073,394,593
>Toy Story 3
$1,066,969,703
>Finding Dory
$1,028,570,889
>Zooptopia
$1,025,521,689
>All did better than Lion King ‘94 and every 2D movie afterwards.
It’s over 2Dbros….
Lion King '94, when adjusted for inflation brought in $1,676,455,919.03~ in 2019 money, just edging out the remake.
When looking at profits for old movies, you need to adjust for inflation.
You did the calculation wrong, you have to calculate inflation.
>realism
>elevated
You cretin. You absolute buffoon.
Seems like the Little Golden Book is out already, if you wanted to you could easily spoil yourselves a few days from now if you ordered it.
link?
its on Amazon but I was wrong, it releases in 11 days so you can't get it any earlier
>Limitations
Sounds like a sorry ass excuse for being shit at their job. We seriously NEED another Disney Renaissance with good movies and that doesn't just have the Rapunzel model recycled over and over again. Traditional hand drawn 2D animation should come back, I'm bored of the 3D CGI shit.
>mogs every single piece of animation that has come before or after it
pshhh...nothin personnel
Fun fact - I love how Akita, Grave of the Fireflies, and My Neighbor Totoro were all released the same year.
*Akira
Also Patlabor and LOTGH
Fantasia is better
Beauty and the Beast and Tarzan used 3DCG for complex camera angles.
And to animate cars and other vehicles
Yeah, I'm just saying that Cinemaphile is being reactionary here. Obviously it doesn't need full CGI, the examples I brought up had 2D characters interacting with CG environments, but you can't do the Tarzan tree sliding scenes without CGI.
You already had worldwide cinematic 2D cartoon movie in Fall 2017. Why didn't you watch it?
Klaus sucked because the characters were shaded to look like 3D models.
Klaus is 2019
Because nobody actually gives a shit about 2D besides autists
But I did
Disliked the character design revamps, though.
The entertainment industry is being headed by frauds.
Tell me something I don't know
How moronic do you have to be to not understand what she's saying? 2d animation is limited by the artist's capability. In 2d you need to draw every angle from scratch, in 3d yoi can just rotate the camera.
>in 3d yoi can just rotate the camera.
Nobody moves the camera in 3D animation, the camera is still 99.9% of the time.
Painting has too many limitations. All art should be sculpture.
How can Disney, of all people, say something so moronic?
>2D has too many limitations in terms of camera movements and characterization.
What the frick is she talking about? Limitations force people to be creativity. That's the beauty of it all. Such an asinine statement.
See
ITT: people who never animated before
Like the fricking head of WDAS?
>"this type of animation is too limited"
>the movie ends up having no ambitious or complex scenes that required the so called limitless potential of CG
This looks like ass. The trailer already has me agreeing with the "villain" and thinking the girl is an obnoxious b***h
I want to support 2D animation, but she looks like a race swapped Tangled. I didn't even like Tangled that much, and I hated Frozen. Princess Tiana was a unique and magical character design. I'm afraid Disney will get the wrong message and learn the wrong lessons if this movie is successful. I just want 2D movies again that aren't reused and recycled material.
jesus, what a stupid homosexual.
Frick dat b***h
Of course the higher ups want to make people think 2D is limited because they're lazy buttholes who would rather use the same model for endless sequels than draw on a fricking paper like people have been doing since the beginning of time.
3D is better than 2D in every way, especially from the perspective of doing rotating camera shots
Translation: "We don't have the talent to do rotational animation in 2D."
They never did. Thats why they started using CG in the 2d movies
>using le realism as an argument in 2023
Companies as a rule should get old and die out anyway. They shouldnt be immortal.