Flash, 2-D or 3-D?

I like 2D the most because it's great,3D is good but I'm getting tired of it,I don't like Flash that much,I only like Total Drama Island and Metal Gear Awesome
 
For me it depends on the project itself. A cartoon's animation should be whatever type that particular story calls for. If it's something like Charlie Brown or Schoolhouse Rock, where it's simplicity is part of it's charm, then obviously that wouldn't be done in CGI. I personally don't have a problem with CG as long as it's good CG. It's a common misconception that CGI will eventually replace all hand drawn animation, when in truth, CG is just another art form and another way of telling a story. Traditional hand drawn animation isn't going anywhere.

Generally, I try to judge an animated series or movie by the quality of it's content, not by the way that it's animated.
 
I can accept all types of animation.

The only time I'm ever "bothered" by a cartoon's animation or artwork is if the design itself looks unappealing or the animation is distracting, IE: Bad lip syncing.
 
What ever can make it look the best in the creator's mind. But this only applies to things that have a purpose other than 'lets cash in on the newest fad'.
 
There are times when I despised the "animation of the month". But I have to revise that when a show appears that I like, in an animation type that I don't.

It's hard for me to accept, but if there is "heart" in the production, the style of animation really doesn't matter. "Cranked out crap" I'll ignore no mater what style it's in.
tvblogmyaa.png
 
Flash-I like Foster's.But that's all.Flash is just a cheap way of making a show if not done properly.Not my favorite.

CGI (Computer-Generated Images;not 3-D): Is very appeasing for those who want a little eye-candy information.The same can be said for anime and Avatar of traditionally animated shows.

Traditional Animation(not 2D):This is by far my favorite when done correctly.I want a smooth,colored-in-the-lines transition from scene-to-scene.

My favorite by far is the combination of Traditional with CGI effects if done properly.The animation is only half the battle,however.The rest of it is the story and characters themselves.
 
This topic comes up every other month or so, but here's my 2 cents:

2D, 3D or Flash, it really doesn't matter to me. All are each different ways of presenting the story. How a cartoon is animated isn't important to me, as long as the writing is top-notch and the characters and story are compelling. A cartoon could be done with lumps of clay or stick figures, as long as it's an entertaining story and the characters pull you in.
 
My favorite will always be the traditional 2D. CGI nowadays is overused and flash only works on the internet. Like Lavenderpaw said, Flash is just a cheap way out on animation.
 
What about Clay animation? ;)

Anyway, I love 2D animation since I grew up watching that kind of stuff. 3D animation is good however it's becoming a little overrated. I like flash since I consider it as 2D animation from the computer.
​
 
Why do you people insist on calling it 3D when it's correct name is CGI?And 2D when it's called traditional?Someone pointed this out a while back and had people side with them (myself included) so why are we reverting back to calling them the wrong names?

I mean,3D is the Hannah Banana Best of Both worlds with 3D glasses.

Come on...
 
Because they're not the wrong names.

Look: animation made using three-dimensional computer-generated models is 3D CGI.

Films that look like they're popping out the screen when you put glasses on are stereoscopic 3D.

The term "3D" applies to both of them. Got that?
 
Back
Top