2D vs 3D

G

GuitarWizz24

New member
Okay, my first thread. I know people already put similar threads like these but someone told me not to post on any really old threads, or something like that. I'm still kind of confused but hey, its my first thread and I'm a newbie. So...


As most of you know these days, 3D animation created worlds of joy and 'unsurpassed beauty', dominating the animation and cartoon industry, and charmed the world with movies like Shrek and Toy Story, and making people forget the classic ways of cartoons, simple handrawn cartoons. Fortunantly, or unfortunantly for some of you, the classic cartoons fought back. Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse slowly became popular again, and The Simpsons and Family Guy showed that 2D still got it. But, the war wages on.

What is better? CGI 3D Animation, or old fashioned but still popular 2D Animation?
 
In general i like 2D cartoons more. The Pixar movies look great, but many other tv-cartoons look not so good and a little bit cheap.
I also like the different styles in 2D more.
​
 
First, let me point out that saying "2D vs 3D" isn't 100% accurate, as 3D isn't an animation style, rather, it's a perspective. There have been some hand drawn cartoons that were shown in 3D (e.g., the 1954 Bugs Bunny short "Lumberjack Rabbit", directed by Chuck Jones). Even with most CGI, you're still getting 2 dimensions, 1 for each eye. 3D is the perspective shown in world scrolling video games such as Grand Theft Auto and World of Warcraft, where you can move in any direction, not just from left to right and vice versa. Therefore, the more accurate description would be "Hand drawn vs CG", but I digress.

To answer the question, while I prefer 2D overall, I don't think that CGI is evil. I'm not going to say that I favor one style over the other, because I've seen both good and bad examples of each. Generally, I try to judge animation by the quality of the storylines, characters and writing rather than how it's animated.
 
I don't have a preference and I refuse to take sides, as I've seen both good and bad examples of each medium. A lot of people are hating CG right now only because it's the latest trend and it's currently being done to death, but CG is not the devil, nor is it destined to be the ruination of the animation industry. CG is just another way to present a story.
 
Both have virtues. Its important to note that they are types of animation, mediums of expression. Quality lies not in the medium but how well the medium is used to express ideas, concepts, feelings, everything that gives substance to a good movie. Overall I'd say 2D has been stronger as an art form and in terms of strong storytelling, and I don't feel that will change until creativity in CG movies gets beyond Pixar productions.

To be fair, of course, 2D has a much longer and richer history. 3D is young and has catching up to do. Pixar is showing the way, unlike Dreamworks with its parody franchise (Shrek) and generic talking animal movies or super realistic CG movies like Beowulf and Polar Express and Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children, although these have their place.
 
When it comes to modern features, all these sucky furry-animals CGI features should be CGI anyway. Because if they were 2d, they would suck even more. CGI always makes everything read clearly, and I wouldn't be able to sit through any of the late 2d features. All the visuals were either very bland, very ugly and\or very badly drawn. Color styling was especially hideous. Since it seems we can't make a decent 2d feature anymore, let it be CGI. It doesn't matter too much anyway.

But of course I would take a Tex Avery or Clampett cartoon over anything 3d. Or classic Disney feature over Pixar.
 
There have been good 2D features in recent years (Persepolis may be one of the greatest animated movies ever).

And I may be alone in this, I much prefer Pixar to classic Disney overall, as I find most Disney movies to be pretty bland in terms of story, whereas Pixar has made some downright brilliant original stories and screenplays.

Traditional animation and CGI are equal in my eyes (though I personally might put stop motion, at least as far as movies go, above both, as less stop motion features are made and as such the few that do get made tend to be great).
 
Both have their strong points. In fact it'd be great if more cartoons blended them together.
Heck, I'm kind of tired of CGI animated films, but if the animation has fluid animation, and/ or great storyline it doesn't matter.

The only reason I could hate CGI, is because that's what studios are mostly hiring.
And I'd rather work in 2D more.
 
Actually, I can agree with you on the point of classic Disney bland stories. But I like the look of classic Disney more, and that was the point of the question. Persepolis is great too, but I was talking about the Hollywood blockbusters. I would like to see a Samurai Jack movie, I would expect it to revive 2d, like somebody said in the other thread.
 
For me the idea is mute. My favorite is a combination of 2D and 3D (Code Lyoko) Once a show grabs me I don't really care how. It's all abstract. The stories and directors seem to be most important.
 
Generally I prefer the old school animation, I like the style more, it's more warmly and in ways funny. Sometimes I even like crappy animation. Also alot of the times the old stories are better. I do adore Toy Story though, they is legendary. And the new TMNT looks fantastic. But I like flaws!
 
Back
Top