Disney says they're not going to do any more 2d animation.

[xshadowscreamx]

such sad news, but we still have studio Ghibli keeping it real.

 

[Vault101]

The title isn't exactly accurate, they have mentioned moving away from HAND-DRAWN 2D animation, that doesn't mean 2D animation is off the table, just that it won't be drawn by hand.

havnt they been doing it digitally since little mermaid? they called it the CAPS systm

[quote/]But when it comes to wanting to use assets in a logical manner then 3D is the way to go. Why redraw something 8 times to get 8 different angles when you can design it once as a textured mesh and view it from an infinite number of angles never needing to redraw it again?

Re-using assets has been something Disney has done on multiple occasions, just look at The Jungle Book, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty and Robin Hood. They all used the same assets as each other just recolored.

There's no 'lost nobility' to hand-drawn animation. 3D animation is just replacing the pencil with the stylus.[/quote]
now your just confusing me...are we talking about 2d or 3d?

2d hasnt been done in a long time...3d has become the almost the standard....look at somthing like shrek compared to lion king...[i/]you can very much see[/i] they are totally different in terms of how they look visually

 

[Vault101]

Paperman was 3d, it was made to look 2D through shaders.

actually I'm pretty sure there was some hand drawn stuff happening in paperman..I couldnt quite pick it at first but it didnt quite look cel shaded

 

[MrHide-Patten]

Paperman was 3d, it was made to look 2D through shaders.

actually I'm pretty sure there was some hand drawn stuff happening in paperman..I couldnt quite pick it at first but it didnt quite look cel shaded

Nope, it was all through shading networks, not strictly through a cell shaded shader, but definitely one custom built to get the look.

 

[Abomination]

The title isn't exactly accurate, they have mentioned moving away from HAND-DRAWN 2D animation, that doesn't mean 2D animation is off the table, just that it won't be drawn by hand.

havnt they been doing it digitally since little mermaid? they called it the CAPS systm

Using hand-drawn images on a digital backing or placing them digitally. It's still hand-drawn.

But when it comes to wanting to use assets in a logical manner then 3D is the way to go. Why redraw something 8 times to get 8 different angles when you can design it once as a textured mesh and view it from an infinite number of angles never needing to redraw it again?

Re-using assets has been something Disney has done on multiple occasions, just look at The Jungle Book, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty and Robin Hood. They all used the same assets as each other just recolored.

There's no 'lost nobility' to hand-drawn animation. 3D animation is just replacing the pencil with the stylus.

now your just confusing me...are we talking about 2d or 3d?

2d hasnt been done in a long time...3d has become the almost the standard....look at somthing like shrek compared to lion king...[i/]you can very much see[/i] they are totally different in terms of how they look visually

We're talking about both. The way 3D is animated and the way 2D is animated is very different and hand-drawn animation is even more different. Not just in appearance but how the creation takes place. 3D, while not 'easier' is less time consuming.

 

[sXeth]

HD 2d animation is pretty good looking still. Though it definately takes a certain level of commitment, and an aesthetic taste.

Also, CG-aid doesn't inherently turn it into 3d sprites. I'm not 100%, but I believe I've read that SimpsonsSouth Park and probably others use computer-assists over hand-drawing every single cell. Once you've animated your character running once, you can prettymuch save that in storage, and layer it ontop of whichever backdrop, with minor adjustments and details added.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Yeah, old news is old news. I wouldn't worry too much - there's always going to be a market for 2D stuff.

Plus, considering this is Disney we're talking about, can you imagine all-3D Disney shorts? I can't. Goofy's How-To's require the fluidity of animation, as does anything Disney could put out that's destined to pay homage to its classic characters.

 

[uzo]

Fuck Disney. No seriously, fuck them. The company is downright evil; fastidiously buying up everything in the media industry, lobbying for extensions of copyright laws that break the very purpose of the laws in the first place, supporting bills like SOPA through huge donations of time and money.

I say lets complete the transition into of irrelevance by simply ignoring the company.

You make it sound like Disney is the real world version of Weyland-Yutani or Umbrella.

Save some of that hate for Apple, matey! I hear they're intentionally infecting civillians with the T-Virus as well as making them buy new iPhone chargers.


*crackle crackle*

... Apple-Disney freighter "Nostromo" .. please change course and investigate that distress signal ....

*crackle crackle*


Back on topic ... I don't really give a damn. Besides Aladdin, I actually prefer the 3D Disney/Pixar stuff anyway. Tried to get my son to watch Lilo & Stitch the other day and he just kept saying "Buzz?!" and looking expectedly at me and back to the DVD player.

 

[FireAza]

I could have sworn that Disney said this years ago... Either way, it's sad to see one of the pioneers of 2D animation give it up because the mainstream public likes 3D better. It looking more and more like the only supporters of 2D will be TV shows (The Simpsons, Family Guy, Futurama etc) and Japan.

 

[RJ Dalton]

You make it sound like Disney is the real world version of Weyland-Yutani or Umbrella.

Disney is the media equivalent of Umbrella Corp. The way they homogenize popular culture, they might as well be infecting everybody with viruses designed to turn them into zombies.
And there's stuff that you can do with cell animation that you can't do with CGI, from a purely stylistic perspective. Disney is assuming that only CGI is profitable because only the CGI movies are making money, but Pixar is the one that's making their CGI and Pixar is a vastly superior company to Disney when it comes to telling stories. If Disney let its animators and writers stretch themselves in the same way Pixar does, you'd see cell animation just as good.

 

[Jegsimmons]

They're going to stick exclusively to 3d animation and CGI stuff. Link here [http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/mar/07/disney-hand-drawn-animation]

They say it's because the hand drawn stuff doesn't make enough money but considering how well paperman did which seemed like hand drawn 2d I think that's a pretty weak argument.

Captcha: numa numa Am I the only one who misses recaptcha? Y'know the one that helped make books available for everyone?

the reason it doesnt do well is because Princess and the frog was stupid, and winnie the pooh was released ON THE SAME WEEKEND AS HARRY POTTER 7 PART 2.


disney is fucking stupid.

Winnie the Poo is sort of aimed at a younger audience than Harry Potter to be honest. Even so, stupid decision.

you're also forgetting Winnie the Pooh probably has one of the largest claims to childhood nostalgia than any other disney film.