2D characters in 3D

[Whats a conrod?]

Why is that some animated characters never look good in 3D? Scooby Doo is the perfect example. In the live action movies he looked like he was sculpted from meat. And in the upcoming series on CN he looks no less weird and awkward.

Which characters have made the transition to computers well? And which ones haven't?

 

[RebelQueen]

I honestly don't think that Mickey and the gang look that bad in Mickey Mouse Clubhouse. It just takes some getting used to.

 

[tinkerpanda]

I actually thought that Scooby-Doo didn't look too bad in the first two live-action movies. The way he looks in the new movie for Cartoon Network does look a bit weird to me, but not necessarily bad.

From what I've seen from pictures and trailers online, the Winx Club characters looked wonderful in CGI. Though, I thought that the whole animation in the movie was well-done to begin with.

 

[Kunmui]

I think one problem is balance. Depending on the character, the end result could either look like a plastic figurine, or it could look almost like a real animal except for the eyes.

I actually liked the way the characters looked in Kingdom Hearts, though.

I can't put my finger on it, but there's something about the shading that manages to make them look more like they actually came to life, rather than being plastic imitations.

 

[Black Leopard]

i didn't like the 2D to 3D transition of the FOP characters in the jimmy timmy power hours but jimmy neutron and friends looked decent in 2D

 

[IHateJewelry]

I think that the main reason why the CGI Scooby in the live action movies looked so "off" was because the movie's producers tried to make Scooby look more like a "real" dog so he wouldn't look out of place while surrounded by live actors and backgrounds. If Scooby had been rendered for a CG video game or something similar, he may have looked better in CG.

Also, I wish that people would stop referring to CGI as "3D". It's not 3D. 3D is a visual perspective, not an animation style, but I've that discussion on the net more times than I can count.

 

[a_little_help_here]

Code Lyoko had kind of the opposite: In the 4th Season, the characters' 3D Lyoko outfits were drawn in 2D when they went to the real world with their Lyoko powers during Teleportation. They actually did it pretty good.. Here's an example:


3D:

2D:

I'm not sure of any more that haven't already been mentioned.

 

[not FRESHR than moi]

All the fairy odd parents characters looked incredibly weird in 3D(except Jorgan).

 

[Saad T]

To play devil's advocate, the FOP characters look weird generally, so they're not likely to look less bizarre in CGI.

 

[bangerang :)]

Well, some designs will work better than others. For me, the example that immediately springs to mind as looking weird are Simpsons characters when they're action figures, game characters, or that one Halloween special. Something about the eyes. Large white circles work in 2D but they become these strange spheres in 3D.

Of course, they also tend to look weird when looking straight on into the camera even in 2D, so in a way it's inherent in the designs.

 

[luv hurts]

and on the other side the Jimmy Neutron characters looked just as weird in 2D.

 

[sara_todd8203]

CGI isn't really a problemless term, either, since a lot of "2D" animation is CGI (like Flash toons).

 

[donaldwoullard]

Well first let me say i was never a fan of cgi animation, and i always prefer 2D even if the cgi is made well. However i'd have to agree with many points made above such as Timmy and his friends looking weird in the Power Hour episodes, and The Simpsons characters. Hmm as to Scooby Doo i reckon he looked allright in the live action movies ... Mickey Mouse in the cgi version doesn't look too bad, but then again he's a very cartoony character. I mean very stylised and rounded a figure, thus he transitions better than say... a more spiky and linear character like Timmy turner (the Butch Hartman chin design for instance). But as i don't much like cgi in general with very few exceptions i guess my input would be a trifle biased. However i will say that i think cgi can make a good transition to 2D and vice versa if done well in most cases... Unless there are 2D elements like Timmy's chin or Bart's eyes that have issues transitioning.

 

[Soul-Unleashed]

I didn't like that their ears pretty much stayed in 2D.

 

[NaipeMagica]

I always thought that 3D Scooby Doo in the theatrical movies was a little off putting, if only because they actually tried to make him look more like a Great Dane. I actually kind of like the 3D model being used for the TV Movie, looks more cartoonish. Also the Live action Garfield was a little off putting, but that's another case of making a fictional orange cat look real. The "Get Real" and "Fun Fest" designs, I have no problem with since they are more in line with the current design in the strips.

Also I do like the 3D/CGI rendition of Alvin and the Chipmunks, they're actually kind of cute once you see them in action instead of stills. Besides I wasn't expecting Chipmunks the size of my leg, I was expecting regular sized Chipmunks.

 

[daniellenmack]

I agree on that. Square Enix does a better job at turning Disney characters into CGI than Disney does!

 

[purple red]

Ed, Edd, N Eddy characters turned out strange in the Video game, but a lot of the things, say Kevin's Shovel Chin, that are mentioned in the show become obvious in the game.

I do think Homestar did a great 3-D transition, if he counts. none of the characters looked off in anyway.