What do you prefer seeing, 2D or 3D animation and why ?

Well with me, I do like CG Animation. But my heart's with 2D animation. Mostly because I love to draw a lot. With 2D animation, you can make something really beautiful looking that even CG can't pull off (anime often looks odd in CG-for example, Gonzo's stuff is poor most of the time, whereas Production IG can pull it off expertly) 2D also has the advantage in that no matter how well animated the series is, if the art is good to look at you can accept its limited movement (unless its glaring that is).

CG on the other hand may look great (Pixar primarily) but it often looks robotic (not in movements, but they look very manufactured) and doesn't look unique compared to 2D shows. Pixar does demonstrate that they can make CG animated films an Art form. As did Mainframe with Reboot and Beast Wars. And ILM with their visual effects. And like I mentioned above, Prod. IG also makes it look good.

That's just one 16 year old Alantic Canadian's opinion. But you can or cannot accept this.
 
Thought i should mention that I ended up writing an article based on this thread. It got me thinking both about my ow past and present animation preferences and how questions similar to this reflect our subtle assumptions about animation.

Anyway, I still think this question has produced a lot of interesting responses and I'm hoping more people will chime in with their thoughts.
 
If 2D toons made today were as high-quality as Lady and the Tramp and Pinocchio, I'd say I prefer 2D. But Princess and the Frog was nowhere near that quality. It was just smooth and formulaic, and therefore boring. Right now I prefer 3D movies - if they have character designs as solid as those in Astro Boy, and animation as beautiful as Pixar's (especially in the movie Monsters Inc. - there were so many textures, fur and scales and snow, that made that movie above-par in terms of eye candy). Until Princess was released, I was a 2D guy all the way. Now, not so much...
 
It's odd, to me, that you use Lady & the Tramp as an example of excellent 2-D visuals, because - wonderful movie though it was - there was very little in it's animation to get excited about. No show-stopping sequences, no mind-blowing attention to details - in fact, it got a lot of criticism then (and still does) for being filmed and shot like a live-action movie.

Princess & the Frog, on the other hand, goes out of it's way to be visually exciting - Eric Goldberg's Louis the more or less constant song-and-dance numbers, the playing around with shadows... it may have been formulaic story-wise (though I don't think it was, obviously), but I don't see how you could say its was boring from an aesthetic standpoint.

I disagree with you about Monster's Inc., as well - another great movie, and it looked good, but the incredibly creative character designs looked better in the concept art, and once you've seen one coat of fur or set of scales, you've pretty much seen them all. I like what they did with Sully, where it seems like they were trying to make him look a little scruffy, but all of the others didn't impress me once I got over the novelty of every hair being drawn.

I haven't seen Astro Boy yet, but I have seen the character designs a bit, and I infinitley preferred the old anime versions - the new ones looked, frankly, like some very high-tier videogame characters. I remember Mike Sporn talking about it, and saying something along the lines of "Wouldn't it be interesting if somebody actually made a movie that looks like an old 60s anime show? But no, nowadays every movie had to look the same..."

You've got one thing right, though - it all fails compared to Pinocchio.:p
 
Although I don't care whether it's CG or 2D, I do have a bias towards 2D.

I feel that hand drawn animation can catch more details and overall is more visually appealing compared to CGI. (although CGI films have some amazing visual appeals)

Wall*E is a great example of how CGI can be well done.
 
It's Eric Goldberg's Louis, actually.

I disagree on Lady and the Tramp. I don't think hand-drawn or any other style of animation needs show-stopping musical numbers, big set piece climaxes, or broad, cartoony characters like Louis to be good. Some films shine in their quieter moments and their subtle observation of mood and character. Lady and the Tramp might now take your breath away with eye-popping visuals, but it's a beautiful film nonetheless and one of my personal favorite Disney movies.
 
Corrected. Glen Keane was that other guy who did that other stuff. I remember now.:anime:

Lady & the Tramp was well-drawn and very well written, and it's my top ten of Disney movies too, and I realize that huge, slapstick caricatures and musical scenes would have ruined it. But it's possible to be a "quieter" film and still be very beautifully and noticeably animated (Pinocchio is actually one movie that has done this), and I don't think L&tT was.
 
I know exactly how you feel. Both CGI, and pencil animation have their strengths, and weaknesses. As long as they're well made, and tell good stories, that's all that should matter, but the studio execs, and the movie going public don't share our views. :sad:That's something else i've noticed about CGI movies. Most of them tend to look the same. (with few exceptions) There's not enough variety in animation style these days. Especially in theatrical animation. TV animation, however, is a different story.
 
But Lady and the Tramp has subtle moments that are beautifully animated, like Peg's song, and Tramp's battle with the rat. Even the moment when Tramp shook himself after getting wet was so beautifully done - it was so dog-like and convincing, with no bouncy silliness like you find in Princess (especially with that alligator - he was useless IMO. Dumb and not funny at all). And L&T is so much more visually beautiful than Frog. Really rich backgrounds that are much more authentic to the movie's time period than were the scantier backgrounds in Frog. But to each his own.

I saw some of the concept art for Monsters, and I can see why the animators made the design decisions they did. Sully with tentacles just wouldn't have worked, and while I think his final design looks a little too Beast-like (as in Beauty and the...), he still looks cool, in fact all of the characters do, especially Randall. I just love Monsters Inc.

In my opinion, the human characters in Astro Boy look much better than many of the human characters in films like Ratatouille or even The Incredibles. The humans in those films looked really rubbery and kind of off-putting. But the characters in Astro Boy look appealing, maybe because they're based so much on the manga/anime. Changes were made, but they were necessary mostly because of the difficulty in translating 2D characters to 3D, as I understand it. I think the designs were successful..

I'm glad we agree about Pinocchio. That movie is awesome.
 
I know I'm not as... knowledgeable, as some of these other posters but I have noticed I'm more likely to be taken aback by 2D films than 3D. I can remember being a little girl and gasping at the jungle in The Lion King, it was just so beautiful and it blew my 5 year old mind. Or even the start of Beauty and the Beast, that village was my favorite scene piece for a long time. Or for the new Princess and the Frog, Dr. Facilier's shop and the bayou in general, my mouth dropped at that water during "When We're Human."

I'll marvel at things in 3D animation that I realize are technically difficult like crowds, fur, water, translucence, and when I heard about the trouble they had with Violet's hair in the Incredible's I was impressed, however, for the most part I'm not taken with the sets or action pieces enough to go "OhGOD that's beautiful!".

I will list some 3D movies where I did drop jaw and did artgasm;

In Ratatouille, those first few shots of Paris and the kitchen, I thought/think they're beautiful.

In Up....the whole thing, I will admit, this movie is gorgeous from start to finish. When Carl and Ellie go into the attic of the old house and I saw light and particles my jaw disconnected and stayed on the theater floor the whole time.

Kung Fu Panda, the camera angles, every set piece I loved how the temple looked and how many different pallets were used.

How to Train you Dragon, flying, that is all.
 
I'm gonna say the right medium for the right story and essentially give a non-answer. XD

For example, How To Train Your Dragon was PERFECT as CG - it would work fine as 2D but, the CG just gave it so much more oomph.

Kung Fu Panda, on the other hand... although I liked the movie, the 2D bits captivated me more than anything. :sweat: I LOVED the little quirks and twitches they did with Master Shi Fu's ears, but - geeze that hand drawn animation over the ending credits was gorgeous! I watched Secrets of the Furious Five the other day and found myself paying more attention to it than I did the original movie.
 
Back
Top