Are we starting a golden age of 2D movies?

M

Mofo947

New member
Okay, sure, that sounds like a bizarre thing to say. Like everyone else here I've been grieving over the loss of 2D movies from Hollywood. But then something hit me: a lot of good 2D films are still being made - and in the past, a lot of bad ones were around too.

To test a hunch, I hopped over to Jerry Beck's movie guide and did some researchin'. Here are the 2D films that came out in America in 1994:



Okay, so there's The Lion King and... some other stuff. I don't know about the Japanese movies, but the rest don't exactly have reputations as classics. Here's the 1995 line-up:



Okay, so Balto and Honneamise are supposed to be good (haven't seen them yet personally) but as for the rest... weelll... and at this point not even Disney can be counted on to make a good film (and this is from someone who is actually kind of forgiving towards Pocahontas)

Now, let's look at all the 2D films that came out between 2005 and '07:



Now we're getting somewhere. Comparatively few films came out and some of them might not be that good, but I'd say this is a pretty strong line-up overall.

Hollywood may have abandoned 2D, but all that means is that there's a higher percentage of arthouse films. Quality over quantity, then? Maybe it's time Hollywood left the medium alone for a second while the Miyazakis and Ocelots have their time in the sun.

Any thoughts?
 
Aqua Teen Hunger Force and Simpsons I wouldn't really put in the catergory as the "Golden Age 2D Movies".

Or at least the same catergory I would put Disney movies in. Mainly because they're movies based on series, one of which doesn't have very much animation at all and the other that's been on for 20 years so computer animation wasn't really all that popular back then.

I don't really think we're starting a golden age of 2D movies.

Things like Ratatoullie, WALL-E, Kung Fu Panda, Horton Hears a Who!, Igor, etc etc seem to overshadow movies like Romeo and Juliet: Sealed with a Kiss and Curious George. They're not as "well known" as things like Beauty & the Beast and The Iron Giant.

Although, we do have hope for 2D becoming popular in animation again seeing as Disney now has a couple of traditionally animated movies planned out. Or so I've heard.
 
As fundamentally bizarre as your conclusion may sound, Monkeyfunk...you may actually be on to something. There have been many times when mediums reach the peak of their popularity and everyone hates them regardless due to some perceived notion that the art isn't possessively 'theirs' anymore. 2D films have become markedly unpopular, and now they're starting to accumulate serious gems.

I guess it shouldn't be that surprising, considering the economics. When something's a proven money-spinner, the Pareto Curve comes into force and the marketplace becomes sharply divided between a few hallowed examples of baroque splendour and a mass of parasitic organisms leeching a spare few pennies off of the trend to buy their next can of dog food. When something has been conclusively proven to not be a money-spinner, then the titans and the bacteria that leech off of them depart, leaving behind the brave few recalcitrants who make 2D films because they genuinely like them, which is bound to elevate the overall quality level through sheer enthusiasm.

Although I'm one of the first critics of those who deride popular entertainment for 'selling out' and wish to drag their favourite art form back into obscurity to service 'their' interests, the current 2D trend is a surprising argument in their favour. Maybe every art form needs a few 'years in the wilderness' every so often to purge themselves of wasteful excess.
 
Why was "Superman: Doomsday" left out? Are you only counting theatrical releases? I didn't even know Persopolis was out.

EDIT: The English dub comes out June 24.
 
It's called traditional animation (:sweat: ) and as for it restarting a golden age in movies,I don't really believe that until Disney comes out with a traditionally animated movie. :sad:
 
When you say "traditional", do you mean literally ink and paint or does digital animation count? For example, the DCAU shows have been digital ever since Return of the Joker, but they retained the same basic style.

I don't think a return to photographed ink and paint will EVER happen. Let's be brutally honest here -- except for a few standouts, ink and paint animation sucked. While I prefer well done traditional style over well done digital, I also prefer mediocre digital over mediocre traditional.

Television animation is WAY better than it was in the 80s and 90s on a visual level (though, content is another matter). Even though I like Aladdin way more than Kim Possible, there is NO debating which had more fluid animation.
 
Well, like I said, not all of these films are brilliant. But crummy 2D films have always been with us (Romeo and Juliet: Sealed with a Kiss is probably on the same level as The Swan Princess or The Pebble and the Penguin), and part of my point is that, since fewer 2D movies are being made, fewer bad 2D films are being made.

And sure, the 2D films are overshadowed by the 3D films, but then hasn't animation as a whole always been overshadowed by live action? It may be the underdog, but that shouldn't stop it from being good.



Yeah, I got the list from Jerry Beck's movie guide, which only lists theatrical releases.



Like Wolf Boy2 says, the trouble with the phrase "traditional aniamtion" is that it would seem to exclude computer animation, when a big factor involved in today's 2D animation is the availability of digital 2D software such as Flash.

Besides, I don't really see why cel animation has the sole right to being "traditional". Stop motion model animation was around beforehand.
 
*sigh* If it's mostly traditional,it's traditional.If it's mostly CGI,it's CGI.If it's mostly Flash,it's Flash.

The problem with calling an animated show or movie 3D is that it's not 3D,it's in CGI format.3D is where you wear 3D glasses and things pop out of the screen.2D is what we are,1D is cardboard cut-outs.
 
In other words, it uses 3D models. And therefore can be referred to as "3D animation" as a useful shorthand. To the best of my knowledge there isn't a term that covers all animation based on 2D images (hand-drawn and digital) besides 2D animation, so I'm going to be using that term for the foreseeable future.

And since you're being picky, I might as well point out that strictly speaking the term "CGI" also covers computer-generated 2D images, such as Photoshop, Illustrator and Flash drawings.



No, we exist in three dimensions, as does cardboard.
 
Are we starting another 2D golden age?

Ummm, no. We're not. Ask me again if we're ever back in an era like the late 80s to mid 90s. Which we probably won't be for a long time. Just because there's been a few interesting 2D movies released in the past few years doesn't mean a new golden era is upon us. CGI is going to dominate the market for years to come. It isn't a fad anymore, as much as people like to pretend it is. Sorry. It's pretty much mainstream now and the mainstream audience has completely accepted it. It isn't a novelty anymore.

It's going to take a lot more than a couple of mildly successful 2D films to usher in a new golden age of traditional animation.
 
Bear in mind that I'm talking about a golden age of quality, here, not a golden age of commercial success. The 1989-1994 period, that was an era of commercial success, which is why it didn't last very long. The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King - they all made tons of moolah, they were all technically accomplished, but I don't think that you can really say the took the medium anywhere new. They didn't lay the groundwork for much innovation - they laid the groundwork for Pocahontas. And Swan Princess 2. And this.

I realise that there isn't much chance of 2D dislodging 3D at the box office, but that's part of my point - the people who want to make cartoons for money are going to 3D 'cause that's where the cash is. That means that 2D movies are largely the domain of people who want to make good films, not the next Ratatoing.
 
Whatever...

My point is it's only called 3D when you wear the 3D glasses and the images seem to come out.CGI is a type of 3D-ness but it wouldn't be called 3D in a conversation over animation,it would be called CGI.
 
I need to see a few more decent films first, I wouldn't consider Pooh's Heffalump Movie or The Simpsons Movie as golden material.
I was alway thinking we were in the golden age of CG movies with Pixar, Shrek and Blue Sky's movies.
 
Back
Top