Should The Movie Have Been CGI?

[Denim&Venöm 18,959]

Unless your last name is Miyazaki, 2-D and traditionally animated films have not fared well over the last decade or so. The last one I can think think of getting any real attention being Sinbad: Legend of the seven seas back in 2003. And that tanked. The films critical failure was quoted on by producer Jeffery Katzenburg, commenting  "I think the idea of a traditional story being told using traditional animation is likely a thing of the past." 

With Pixar and Dreamworks having made their fortunes on 3D animation, and 9/10 highest grossing animated films of all time being CGI (the exception being the lion king), with Frozen right at the top, should Hasbro have tried to go the same route with the MLP movie? Would they have attracted more attention and more profits had they essentially did a high budget Source Filmmaker rendition of their planned script? Why take the gamble with a traditional piece in this day in age?

And on that note, how would you have reacted upon learning that the MLP film had gone the route of CG? What would have been the advantages and disadvantages of going the CG route vs. traditional animation? 

 

[Sparklefan1234 170,732]

@Denim&Venom

 

I don't know, TBH.

For example,

 

I wasn't a big fan of the CGI used in the "SpongeBob Squarepants: Sponge Out of Water" movie & that made me think of

"The Smurfs", which made me think of all the other awkward looking CGI cartoon characters

that were converted from 2D animation in the last couple decades.

 

My point is,

while it may make Hasbro more money, I don't know how well MLP would translate to 3D models like you're describing.*

*I'm not counting SFM models as those are slightly different to what I'd imagine

the ponies to look like on the big screen if they were converted to three dimensions. 

 

Edited September 19, 2017 by Sparklefan1234

[lua 106]

Probably not, I'm not sure it would look well when the shows animation is usually 2D, but i guess i could see it working.

[Jeric 46,851]

I don't care if they made a mistake, I like this style better for these characters. 

At this point I look at an animated film the same way that I look at paintings. So my answer to this question is ...

What the artist was trying to create and suggest here may not have translated in another style. Removing the commercial element here, I want to suggest that the current choice was selected because it is the best method to achieve what the team wanted. 

I prefer that motivation over maximizing interest for just profit. So I'm going to suggest they made the right call. One could also argue that the dearth of traditional animation makes taking a temperature check difficult, but seeing as I predict the film will make a modest ROI, that would be disingenuous. Also trad animation is kinda a misnomer these days. It's usually all done with some software. Lines are blurred. 

[Babyyoshi309 1,829]

Actually, apparently there are a ton of people going to see the movie specifically because it is 2D. 

[dragonargon 3]

No. It looks like shit in 3D.

[Kaneki 1,073]

3D may have worked. But in all honestly, the target audience would probably like the normal animation style better (though what do I know? I haven't been that young for at least 10-15 years), so it would work better in 2D that way. At least that's what I think.

Though some may like 3D, I don't know. Gotta keep kid's attention span somehow.

[SaburoDaimando 1,196]

Actually, correction.  The last 2D Movies we had included The Simpsons Movie, The Princess and the Frog, and Winnie the Pooh(I know because I watched all three).  They were all well-received, but only Winnie the Pooh tanked.

[Jeric 46,851]

12 hours ago, Cloggedone said:

3D may have worked. But in all honestly, the target audience would probably like the normal animation style better (though what do I know? I haven't been that young for at least 10-15 years), so it would work better in 2D that way. At least that's what I think.

I have a decent amount of little kids in the family who watch television cartoons. Two of them have a favorite show and it does kinda make for an interesting discussion point regarding CGI vs traditional. They love the Tangled series. They also adore the movie (more than Moana and Frozen). Considering the series is a 2D stylized version, that shows that they aren't put off by a change in style of a beloved property. It also shows me that the design may not be that significant to them. They also enjoy a lot of other shows, some 2D (Duck Tales, Pony, Steven Universe) and CGI. 

Seems like if the characters are interesting, the show is charming, funny, and just plain entertaining ... they don't care. 

[Kaneki 1,073]

24 minutes ago, Jeric said:

I have a decent amount of little kids in the family who watch television cartoons. Two of them have a favorite show and it does kinda make for an interesting discussion point regarding CGI vs traditional. They love the Tangled series. They also adore the movie (more than Moana and Frozen). Considering the series is a 2D stylized version, that shows that they aren't put off by a change in style of a beloved property. It also shows me that the design may not be that significant to them. They also enjoy a lot of other shows, some 2D (Duck Tales, Pony, Steven Universe) and CGI. 

Seems like if the characters are interesting, the show is charming, funny, and just plain entertaining ... they don't care. 

True, true. A lot of kids do like interesting characters and humor, and if it's entertaining. Good point.

[cmarston1 5,959]

Not really.  Outside of being happy to see another 2D animated film in wide release, I have to say that FiM characters look pretty bad in 3D.

[heavens-champion 1,905]

After a decade or so of nothing but all-CGI films, I think a 2d film is welcomed. It may or may not be a big hit, but honestly, what's so important about an award, anyway?

[Moved to Elsewhere 11,331]

No. I've seen people animate the ponies in CGI, all of them look like robotic garbage. Making 2D characters 3D can work just look at The Peanuts movie, but not for this show.

[Splashee 28,564]

Absolutely not. And let's hope it stays non-CGI for G5. I can take the rounded cheeks, but I cannot accept this:
 

Spoiler

 

 

[Snivinerior 79]

I haven't watched the whole thing but they look good the way they are... 

[Vefka 1,499]

If they decided make it in 3D, It would be a huge pain in ass. As a person who tried animating ponies, I can say that 3D models have quite limited range of poses in which they look ok. Just pick a random art where pony is lying or doing bipedal thing, I'm almost completely sure that in that art pony has short neck (or even doesn't have any) and human-like shoulders. In 2D you can do such things, but in 3D it looks uncanny

[Splashee 28,564]

There are a few parts in the movie that are technically CGI. I mean most art is digital, and moves about some kind of projected plane you could call 3D. Also a few story boards were made completely in 3D, and thank god they didn't go with that. I feel some of the character's expressions are directly extracted from their 3D models, which also makes them look way round and odd at places.