Why has traditional animation died (in the states)?

[SweetShark]

Because kids have shit taste nowadays and 3-D has utterly dominated the market. At least you can rely on Europeans to keep it alive in the mainstream market...

Yes, because clearly the traditional 2D films are not sh*tty.

2D > 3DPD erryday

But seriously, I haven't seen a single 3-D film outside of Pixar that wouldn't be improved by having 2-D animation. There are so many 2-D test animations out there for 3-D movies that looked like an infinitely better film than the final product. It just seems that not enough people are really trying to do anything groundbreaking with 3-D nowadays, like it's used in lieu of 2-D animation for no other reason than it being a cheaper alternative. Outside of stuff like Tron: Uprising and the aforementioned Pixar offerings you don't see many people doing anything truly unique with the medium.

So, I see the main problem is the most times the 2D testing they do, are more interesting and good looking?
To be honest, if I think is something good and entertaining, I don't give a single d*ck if the movie is 3D or 2D.

 

[Xerosch]

Did it really die? My thoughts always were that there is still a niche market, but not dead. Just take a look at the trailers for these little known movies. They all range from really good to phantasic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J3kkUt2Gkg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMPhHTtKZ8Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMqpU7lUlLg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ22VyjJ6n8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgbXWt8kM5Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmptL7rXJw0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTl-6grKR9M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk6IB_Kgl4E

 

[AT God]

I follow a lot of flash animators who work freelance here in the states and they do a podcast where one topic they often discuss is animations (as well as lots of childish and very politically incorrect things).

I am arrogantly speaking for them but I feel they think 2D animation is dying in the US because of financial problems only. Aside from being hired by companies to make something, their best financial outlet at the moment for financial support for animation is Youtube. But Youtube's payment system is diametrically opposed to animation, ad revenue is maximized for things like Lets Plays because Lets Plays can be uploaded basically daily and are often 15+ minutes long. In contrast, it might take 6 months of work to make a 15 minute animation or more. Usually flash animations are between 30sec and 3 or so minutes, and an animator can only spit out a few of those a months working full time. And at that runtime, ad revenue isn't enough to support yourself.

Another thing that seems to anger them greatly is how animated shows are handled. Two of the guys on the podcast had a TV pitch that failed and they feel the whole process was really poor and difficult. They also seem to loathe how much money gets thrown into long running animated series, they often talk about how Family Guy gets a budget of 1 million dollars per episode. This really angers them because they feel the animation of that show is incredibly poor, in no way constituting that level of finance.

I think Patreon has a chance at protecting some animators because I feel a lot of animators have big amounts of fans. Also a lot of people with animation skills switch to drawing porn to make ends meet, apparently lots of people still pay top dollar for pornography in 2015. I have seen a fair few Patreons get a large amount of support from fans, although I don't think Patreon is sustainable for the entire medium, I can only think of maybe 5 animators who have reasonably funded Patreon.

Oh and the podcast I mentioned is called "SleepyCast" and can be found at sleepycabin.com. I recommend it but it might offend some of the more sensitive people, great laugh for me though.

 

[Casual Shinji]

It's come to a point where audiences are now simply conditioned to prefer 3D-mation over 2D.

3D is seen as an advancement over 2D, it's easier to craft dynamic sequences with 3D, and obviously 3D animation works better for the 3D theater experience.

Here's the thing though, 2D animation has been slowly dying ever since the 40's. 3D may have overtaken the market in the west, but that doesn't mean there's not still some great animators working in the field. There's better quality animation in 3D western movies now than there is in 2D Japanese movies.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

Because kids have shit taste nowadays and 3-D has utterly dominated the market. At least you can rely on Europeans to keep it alive in the mainstream market...

My younger sisters would like to disagree with you. They loved Young Justice and Teen Titans (the good one) as well as Under the Red Hood.

But maybe that's just us, because for a decade all we had on Disney Channel were shit 3D Malaysian cartoons.

 

[TravelerSF]

Ok, this is a huge chunk of speculation, but I think it might've gone a little bit like this:

When it comes to animated movies in general, it all began with Disney. However the company got into big trouble creatively, which was particulary evident in the early 2000s, and they didn't recover from it until the former Pixar CEO Ed Catmull took over. Now, while Disney was struggling Pixar was doing as strong as ever and Dreamworks secured their foothold with Shrek and other franchises. Even Disney themselves started experimenting with 3D-animation at this point, with such duds as Chicken Little and Mars Needs Moms.

So during this period market saw the popularity of 3D movies rise, while 2D movies were doing baddly, not because of the animation style, but the quality of the overall film. This, coupled with the "failure" of Princess and The Frog and the benefits of 3D animation led to the conclusion that 2D animation is not worth it because it's more worksome and "doesn't sell".

Personally I don't see why 2D-animation couldn't come back if Disney or Dreamworks would be willing to make an effort to produce a good, traditionally animated film. I strongly believe there is an audience there, it was simply put off by the downfall of Disney's animation in the early 2000s. Sure, the cost and effort might be bigger, but if the overall product would benefit from it, so would the profit. Frozen didn't sell insanely well because it was 3D, but mainly because of the overall quality of the story, characters and the animation.

And for the record, I'm actually quite happy Disney moved into 3D. Sure, I'd like there to be a proper balance between the two styles of animation, but I can see the advantages of 3D as well. There where things in Frozen that could've never, ever been done in 2D, all the way from the movement of snow to the subtle movements of the characters.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

It hasn't died, TV is doing wonders with 2D animation right now, at least I've seen an increase in quality lately (Gravity Falls, Steven Universe, Over the Garden Wall) than I have in previous years.

It's died pretty much for movies, that is because 3D saves time (and time is money). Although it takes a lot of effort to make a model, rig it, texture it, ext, once you have it made, you don't need to make it over and over and over again if you want to change angles. Same with backgrounds, make the environment and a character can move any way the animators want in it.

Then the next step the companies must make sure to create 3D animated movies, but look like 2D.
In videogames it already happened [Guilty Gear xrd]. but in movie it would be very difficult. Except of course it already happened and I don't know about it.

Spoiler: Paperman

 

[elvor0]

One of the reasons is that CGI animation can often be easier. When it comes down to it Pixar became a challenge so Dreamworks Animation went to 3D and immediately blew them straight out of the water. Pixar still can't catch up to Dreamworks for quality of image, or even in quality of story. But they're trying. Most other western studios are trying to catch Dreamworks and Pixar in the 3D arena because it is both cheaper and easier, but also because it's seen as "the future."

Really? Because Dreamworks have released a lot more stinkers or mediocre films than Pixar. The worst Pixar has under its belt is Cars 2. You say it like it's a matter of fact that Dreamwork is better than Pixar, but that doesn't really line up with the facts or popular opinion.

Almost every Pixar film has been piled with rewards and revered, made a killing at the box office and pushes the medium in new ways (not as much as they used to, but whatever) About half of Dreamworks productions are on or below the 60% mark and have a cavalcade of steadily declining (in all aspects) sequels of awful quality. Don't get me wrong, Dreamworks have made some good movies, but they've also got some bad ones, and relative to each others release, the Pixar ones came out on top every time.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Well I know for one thing, as soon Pixar Toy Story became a smash hit, they accidently cause a downfall of 2d animation starting with Disney shutting down their 2d animation studio or something like that (I saw this in a Pixar documentry).

The way I see it, when Pixar release Toy Story, everyone was blown away by it and became an arm race/ gold rush due (or maybe it's an copy and paste an original product) to see 3d animation being superior and possibly cheaper compared to 2d animation (granted wheather or not this is true is a different debate). I think this was somewhat reinforce when every kids back then wanted to see more 3d stuff.

Shift to the present day, 3d animaion is kind of mainstream now when it come to the big screen and everyone is sick of it so every now and then we do get to see the return of 2d or non cgi animation every now and then (The Princess and the Frog and ParaNormal etc).

 

[SweetShark]

It hasn't died, TV is doing wonders with 2D animation right now, at least I've seen an increase in quality lately (Gravity Falls, Steven Universe, Over the Garden Wall) than I have in previous years.

It's died pretty much for movies, that is because 3D saves time (and time is money). Although it takes a lot of effort to make a model, rig it, texture it, ext, once you have it made, you don't need to make it over and over and over again if you want to change angles. Same with backgrounds, make the environment and a character can move any way the animators want in it.

Then the next step the companies must make sure to create 3D animated movies, but look like 2D.
In videogames it already happened [Guilty Gear xrd]. but in movie it would be very difficult. Except of course it already happened and I don't know about it.

Spoiler: Paperman

THIS IS I AM TALKING ABOUT!!!! This is BEAUTIFUL!!!!

 

[spartan231490]

um . . . it hasn't. You're suffering from nostalgia bias.

 

[Saetha]

Spoiler: Paperman

THIS IS I AM TALKING ABOUT!!!! This is BEAUTIFUL!!!!

I posted that earlier in the thread and you didn't even reply to me! And I did it in response to YOUR POST.

THIS WAS MADE WITH MEANDER

IT'S AN ANIMATION PROGRAM FROM DISNEY

IT MADE THIS AS WELL.


PAY ATTENTION TO ME DAMMIT.

 

[Fox12]

um . . . it hasn't. You're suffering from nostalgia bias.

Am I? Because I didn't say 2d films were getting worse, I'm saying their not getting made at all. If you can name five major 2d films released in the last 5 years, then I'd like to hear them. Because the only ones that come to mind are a handful of arthouse projects, like Song of the Sea. And that's Irish, so it doesn't qualify (even though I loved it).

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Traditional hand-drawn animation has been dying out since before you were born (I'm guessing about your age). Somebody somewhere realized that CGI technology was more capable than what a human could produce with acetate and ink. One of the earliest examples that comes to mind is a scene from the movie Young Sherlock Holmes, where a

Spoiler: stained glass window comes to life.

stained glass window comes to life.

That was 1985 by the way.

Other examples might surprise you, like the truck scene from The Rescuers Down Under (1990) and sections of the ball room scene from Beauty and the Beast (1991). Both of those scenes used CGI judiciously in order to save on time, effort and cost.[footnote]Remember, everything has a deadline[/footnote] And those are just examples that I noticed on my own and then later confirmed with some behind-the-scenes footage.

I can't blame studio executives for thinking all people want to see CGI animated movies now. It's really up to animators to adapt to demand, not the other way around.

I say all this while admitting that I own an Artograph light box, an Epson high-speed scanner, and some round-hole pegbars from Lightfoot, Ltd. But I also downloaded Unity and some other things to play around with. I dabble in hand-drawn stuff because it's fun, not because I think there's a market out there for this stuff.

That's a great summary, but you've forgotten The Great Mouse Detective (1986). The showdown between Basil and Ratigan takes place inside the cogs of Big Ben's clock hands, and animating dozens and dozens of moving gears by hand would've been time-consuming. All the spinning gears in this particular scene are CGI. The rest of the movie, however, was handled traditionally.

 

[Charli]

Less animators need paying. Also marketeers the both loved and loathed bodies of any creative industry have noticed that since Toy Story CGI animashun is much more popular, so you see the viewing public never wants to see any more 2D work again. The chart says so.

Which of course is bullshit on a stick, there's some beauty that 3D animation can't ever hope to match in 2D, they try, and I absolutely adore movies that try to combine the two mediums into something that transcends both.

But for studios the cost often comes too high to pay teams to do double work.

I love 2D animation, to bits and I hope this trend of individual people on youtube displaying their meticulous work continues and it gets more recognition. But for now, it's off the silver screen bar a few scant productions and intro shorts.

 

[crypticracer]

CG is hitting it's peak, computer's took over all of animation. Even 2d animation is made on computers these days, this gave CG an edge and it was fresh to audiences.

Sooner rather than later people are gonna be sick of all CG animation looking the same forcing new styles to them, with some deciding to go back to more traditional animation. There was a ten year period where Stop-Motion seemed to take over, but ti's just
a novelty these days.

We should also realize that CG is still in it's infancy. Animation has been around at least since 191X. Growing in massive popularity in the thirties. So if we can get CG artists with styles equivalent to 2D I'd be plenty happy.

 

[Risingblade]

When in doubt, follow the money.

 

[Kolby Jack]

You can also direct the camera better in a 3D setting. To place the camera somewhere in 2d you have to draw EVERYTHING from that perspective. For 3d you just... put the camera there.

I'm a bit of a cartoon buff myself, and sometimes I gush about 2D stuff achieving things that 3D stuff just cant, but I'm okay with 3D cartoons. Technology moves ever forward, and many 3D movies these days are fantastic. I especially love how artistic some of Dreamworks movies can get.

 

[CrystalShadow]

A few things. Because of Pixar I'm guessing, the 3D animation boom happened mostly because of them (though Dreamworks has enough hit films to warrant a mention).

Another damning strike was the underperformance of The Princess and the Frog in 2009. It made it's money, sure, but it didn't make anywhere near the same profits as the 3D films that followed it. When the company best known for putting out traditional animation chooses to shy away from it, I imagine everyone else just assumed that it was the logical step to avoid it.

Then the next step the companies must make sure to create 3D animated movies, but look like 2D.
In videogames it already happened [Guilty Gear xrd]. but in movie it would be very difficult. Except of course it already happened and I don't know about it.

The japanese have released a few films kind of like that though partially cell shaded would be a better description such as the new berserk movies and the not so recent appleseed movie

Although it's not a tool for animation as such (it can be used that way, but it's more for games.), and it's... Japanese, but I'm reminded of this: http://www.live2d.com/en/about/whats_live2d

It's a program designed primarily to allow 2d style animations to be made easily and used in games. The current version imposes some practical limits, but they are working on something to allow games to use this technique in 3 dimensions for games generally. (it seems to come down to using their weird 2d techniques for faces, and 3d meshes for bodies. - Which makes sense if you take japanese animation trends into account, I guess...)