3D versus 2D Animation

I was just reading this article about the competition between tradition 2D animated films such as "Brother Bear" and new 3D computer-generated films like "Finding Nemo for best animated feature in the Academy Awards.

Audiences seemed to have abandoned 2D animation and moved on to the better realism of 3D animated fares. Is it just the better realism or could it also be the better story that has lead 3D films to captivate audiences and to generate higher grosses?

When I watched recent traditionally animated movies by Disney, they seemed very juvenile with talking animal sidekicks and nonsensical storylines, much less sophisticated than the earlier movies in late '80s and early '90s like the "Little Mermaid," "Aladin," "Sleeping Beauty" and "Lion King." The quality is just not there; what was Disney thinking with films like the "Emperor's New Groove" or "Hercules?"

I do know that Disney's animation studios have been asked to work for less money following lower box office receipts over the last few years and, reportedly, may soon be closed. Other studios, Fox and Dreamworks, have seems to learn the lessons of Disney's and embarked on 2D animated films that were more sophisticated and could be enjoyed by adults. However, even those studios have not fared well in the box office--including 2D films mixed in with 3D technology.

In the meanwhile, 3D films, across the board, have done real well, but, I must say, I haven't really seen a bad 3D animated film. One representative from Pixar claimed that the success of all the Pixar films resulted from having a good story. He added that, for each movie produced by Pixar, each one had been "the worst movie of all time" before further editing.

It reminded me about the Office 97 development process, where, for a while, the Office 97 Professional user interface looked terribly unprofessional. CommandBars, with the initial version of its new flat look, were hideous as did the Office Assistant and many other parts of the product. It was through multiple iterations of progressively less hideous UIs, that Office 97 stabilized on its final look.

I started thinking that, perhaps, with traditional 2D films, the making of each frame is a non-reusable, labor-intensive activity, causing it to be much more difficult to go back. Recreating a whole new set of frames to replace the earlier version requires throwing away the earlier labor and duplicating the costs of that labor. With 3D, while creating a scene may be time-consuming, it's fairly easy to go back and modify the scene substantially to tie it to a different story line. In addition, the various models in the scene can be reused from scene to scene, and a new improved version can be retrofitted to an old scene easily.

My point is that it is probably easier to create a good story in 3D than in 2D, simply because 3D better supports an iterative development process. It's like the difference between typewriters and wordprocessors (or throw-away testing and unit testing); editing is far easier with the latter. At the end of the day, when the film is made and it is later discovered that the story isn't satisfying, it's much easier to change. It's likely the story will need changing because it's hard to get each part of the film right, when you won't see the whole until the end.

It's possible to improve the editing of 2D films with computers, but without a 3D model in place, a drawing cannot easily be rotated into a different perspective and each subpart (like a leg) cannot freely move around independently. Also, I think that the damage has already been done, the poor quality of previous 2D animations have hurt the reputation of the genre.

Comments

[Michael Giagnocavo]

Bad 3D movie? Final Fantasy. Square completely forgot to create a story in their rush to make awesome grpahics, which really sucks, since every FF game has pretty much rocked, story-wise. I loved FF6, even in SNES graphics. With the FF movie, they achieved awesome graphics. So, we were left with a movie that looked like it had real actors and no story. The Final Fantasy movie didn't even have an airship. What were they thinking?

Also, the technical quality of 2D animation in general has gone WAY down, from cartoons (ever see the junk they have on for kids these days) to movies (compare stills from recent Disney releases to Snow White).

Pixar would have great releases even if they were stuck with a 256x256 pixel screen with a 16-bit palette.

[Michael Giagnocavo]

Another thing, Disney has no excuse for turning out crappy movies. Look at movies like Tonari no Totoro, Princess Mononoke, Spirited Away, Kiki's Delivery Service, etc. I'm guessing their budgets are way under Disney's.

As well, one of the reasons that the 3D animations are working so well is that they know they don't look real, but embrace their shortcomings, which is great for cartoons. Traditional 2D animation doesn't have that shortcoming -- it's not trying to look real, it's trying to make you imagine it's real. 3D does quite the opposite in that it tries to recreate everything.

[Thomas Freudenberg]

I think the main point is the difference between hand-made vs. computer-generated, not 2D vs. 3D.

[j-walker]

alot more feelin and emotion goes into 2D, and there is alot more of your own creative style.

[w earl]

Interesting theory. But when have talking animal sidekicks not been a part of Disneys films (I seem to remember Beauty and the Beast had a French candle in it. 3D animation may be easier to tweak than 2D animation, but an artist still has to do that tweaking. And remember that Pixar puts so much work into the script/story/layouts stages that very little of the story changes during production. To say that the reputation of the genre has been hurt because Disney hasn't kept up it's usual high quality is a little uninformed and silly. I don't need to mention the high standard of Anime coming out of Japan (someone else already did), and not all of the animation on TV is crap - the simpsons, south park, the family guy, spongebob sq.pants. All examples of TV animation that are enjoyable, they may not be technically brillant like Finding Nemo, which is visually beautiful. I'd like to find the reviewer that stated that Pixar's renderman isn't up to what WETA (ie Gollum) is doing visually - WETA uses renderman to do it's final renders.

2D isn't dead. And 3D is just another tool to telling a story.

[eric chapman]

I believe there is a huge gulf between hand-drawn and computer animation. Compare the ultimate quality seen in Disney's Pinnochio with computer made work. Disney gathered some hundreds of the best artists in the world to produce work which has never been beaten. The hand-drawn line which comes directly from the brain of the artist must surely be a more immediate representation of the intended article (character) coupled with the work of the colouring department, to produce an art-form never equalled in the history of animation. Pixar may be a great company, but bears no relation to the Disney company of the 1930s/40s. I suppose if the general public, who today know nothing of Disney at his best, are happy with computer-generated work, that is unfortunate to say the least.
Eric Chapman (hand-drawn for all-time)

[Siobhan]

I just hope that 3D doesn't replace 2D, like digital cameras are trying to replace film. I'm not saying 'down with technology'. I just don't want it to replace things it shouldn't. I'm aspiring to be a 2D animatior, and with the way things are headed, my job opertunities are getting smaller. But, I find that filmakers like Miyazaki, put thier heart in these stories and present them perfectly with paper and pencil. It seems to me that other companies just want to push movies out there and hope they sell. Amazing things can be done in 2D, if you can look past the time and money it takes. It's all about the love of drawing for me.---Sio<><

[thatkid]

It's not weather or not the film was created by hand or by computer, it all comes down to the story, the creative energy of everyone involved in the movie, and the level of dedication and effort that the artist puts into the production to come out with a high-quality, highly enjoyable film. Disney management has completely forgotten those aspects and have instead shifted all creative control to the management in hopes that the films will come out better under some dictatorship. It seems as if the artists have turned into Michael Eisner's drones.