Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2-D vs CGI

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 2-D vs CGI

    In 2004 Disney said that it would never add another 2-D animated film to its cannon of animated films, and that from then on, all animated films would be done in CGI. Many other movie makers have also stopped making 2-D in favor of CGI films. However 2hen the animation dept. at Disney got new leaders, they showed interest in returning to 2-D, and now have a 2-d movie coming out at the end of this year, but all the other current upcoming animated films that come afterward will be done in CGI.

    What do you think about this shift in animation, and do you like it?

  • #2
    Re: 2-D vs CGI

    Something can be 2D and CGI ... CGI is just computer generated images.
    this post = teh win.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 2-D vs CGI

      by cgi i mean shrek like films

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 2-D vs CGI

        Pixar has been a great addition to Disney and has produced much better animated films than Dreamworks. I think you're refering to 3D instead of CGI. As Sip said, both 2D and CGI can coexist, but if you're talking about films like Shrek, then you're refering to 3D.

        I think it's great that they're stepping back into 2D because it's a great reminder of the older animated films. It's really tough to say where we're going to go from here, especially with 3D being pushed by studios. 3D was a fad many years ago and it's being reinvented for our cinemas once again, but I don't know if it will last. Even if it does and it breaks into the future, I think it will ultimately cause 2D films to shrink overtime.

        In my opinion, some of my favorite animated films are 2D. I don't see a problem, Pixar knows what they're doing. Dreamworks on the other hand...

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 2-D vs CGI

          I prefer the 2D films to the newer CGI stuff, though some Pixar features have been pretty great.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 2-D vs CGI

            Aside from the original Disney characters, I was never a big fan of Disney. I was more of a Hanna Barbera fan. I think the 3-D CGI's are done really well, but there is too much drama in the story lines much like many Disney films.

            I'm curious as to how the story board layout is being conveyed to the animators who are slaving away in front of their PC's while rendering the 3D animations. I'm hoping the manual artistic skills aren't being lost in the transition like the way manual drafting skills are being lost in architecture and design.
            "Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it." ~Malcolm X

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 2-D vs CGI

              Tom Hanks recently disclosed that the producers for Toy Story didn't present him with a script for Toy Story 3. Instead, they screened the actual film - in a very rough form - with the characters being voiced by the animators. I truly respect where they have taken animated films, especially their use of 3D in the more recent pictures.

              Again, however, it's not a battle between 2D vs. CGI, it's 2D vs. 3D. CGI is used in both 2D and 3D.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 2-D vs CGI

                Originally posted by One-Way View Post
                Again, however, it's not a battle between 2D vs. CGI, it's 2D vs. 3D. CGI is used in both 2D and 3D.
                yeah i didn't want to say 3D b/c of non animated 3D films...

                Originally posted by One-Way View Post
                I truly respect where they have taken animated films, especially their use of 3D in the more recent pictures.
                I also have respect for how far they've come, but my qualms with the 3D pictures is that none of them seem to have substance, and while that maybe due to bad scripts, think of it this way, could you look back at prior 2D animated films, and take the serious parts as serious as you did?

                Parts of movies like the Lion King, and even the Hunchback of Notre Dame(although this one has some bad parts as well) and many other movies would just be tarnished in 3D

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 2-D vs CGI

                  If anything, I'd say Dreamworks doesn't have any animated films with substance. Their characters and storylines fall flat, whereas Pixar puts out quality films. Toy Story, Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo, and Wall-E are all excellent examples of animated films with character quality and depth.

                  Older animated films like Lion King wouldn't quite work in 3D, which is why they might still be working in the 2D format. I wouldn't really compare them, I understand what you're saying but these 3D films present a different twist. For this reason, I think it would be great if 2D and 3D can coexist.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X