movies/tv 2D vs 3D Animation

[Party Cannon 874]

Obviously there are exceptions to our preference, but which type of animation do you like the most: 2D or 3D?

 

Personally, I am all about 2D. This undoubtedly was affected by growing up in the 2D Golden Age of the 1990's, which was reached by the advances and works of the decades for it. Obviously the white elephant in the room is Disney. I had so much hope with the release of The Princess and the Frog that they would start producing 2D features again. Sadly, 3D has taken over for now.

 

 

 

What particular media that caused me to make this topic was the Star Wars Clone Wars franchise. There was a 2D show back in 2003, and a 3D show that ran for the past few years and just ended. I love the 2D show and don't entirely care for the 3D one. True, writing is the most important element, yet even with that taken into account visually the 2D looks much more breath taking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what do you think? Have a good comparison between 2D and 3D? Which one is more appealing to you?

[Yes-Man 597]

It really depends.

2D television shows tend to be better than 3D ones (TMNT and Clone Wars break this mold), while 3D movies sometimes tend to be better than 2D ones.

And both require enormous effort and skill.

But if I had to choose, I would pick Flash/2D animation over 3D. It's what I plan on doing, so this may be a bit biased, but whatever.

[Megas 27,217]

In the end of the day, it still depends on who's making it. That said I've always thought that 2D animation had a little more life to it

[Golurk 467]

I typically prefer 2D, since that's mostly what I grew up with. Just seems to be better than 3D in most cases. Although I specifically remember being very impressed with Jimmy Neutron as a kid, mostly because it was in 3D. Kinda blew my mind at the time.

[Hansel 1,511]

This undoubtedly was affected by growing up in the 2D Golden Age of the 1990's, which was reached by the advances and works of the decades for it.

 

 

Are you talking about the actual Era's of Animation here? If so, the Golden Age was actually between the Late 20's through to the early 60's, which came after the Silent Age and before the Dark Age. The 90's was actually the Renaissance Era, and was also an era of animation I grew up on, along with the following Millennium Age, where we're currently at. (Though I'm not sure how "official" that term is.) 

 

 

Anyway, I'm an animation enthusiast. I love all forms of animation, whether it's 2D, 3D, Stop Motion, Clay Motion, Pixel Motion, whatever, I adore animation in all it's forms. I do however  have a soft spot for 2D. I'm probably a bit bias because I just finished my Bachelors degree in 2D animation, but that's how I feel nonetheless. It does hurt knowing that there's a whole generation of kids growing up in the West right now who might never get to see a 2D animated film in the cinema, unless things start changing. However, it's still good to know that there's lots of cartoons and animes on using 2D animation.

 

Do I dislike 3D animation? Of course not, as I said before, I love all forms of animation. But if I had to choose, I'd go for 2D. It just makes me warm and fuzzy inside. I know and have worked with people who despise 3D animation, and others who think 2D animation is outdated and that there's no room for it anymore.

As cheesy as it sounds, I kinda wish these people would see the beauty in both.

 

I'm not a fan of 2D films/shows that use use 3D elements as shortcuts (*cough* ballroom scene in Beauty and the Beast *cough*). Whilst I totally understand why many animations (particularly TV cartoons) do this, and I can usually overlook it and easily forgive it, I can't help but feel that it ruins the aesthetics of the show, and also make the 3D art from look cheap.

 

Saying that, when 2D and 3D are blended together with artistic intentions for aesthetic appeal, I fully support this. When done right, the results can be wonderful.

In fact, one of my favorite animated shows, Tron: Uprising, does this incredibly well.

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

Oh, and about the Clone Wars thing; The animation wasn't the only thing that changed. The original 2D series was actually run by Genndy Tartakovsky (Same guy who created Dexter's Lab and Samurai Jack). He wasn't involved in the 3D version, and the writing changed dramatically. 

Edited July 26, 2013 by Hansel

[Esk 201]

Hopefully lincolnshirepony comments on this thread, because she and I were discussing this recently, and she might have some valid points to make about both mediums. (Warning; there's a huge wall of text ahead..)

 

Anyways, I personally prefer 2D animation. Sure, you could argue that 3D animation offers just as many opportunities for diverse animation styles as 2D can, but my opinion on this is mostly based upon what the big names (and some lesser known names) in animation have done with both of these types of animation.

 

I personally believe that with 2D animation, you can make a wider variety of styles to use on settings and characters, and you have more artistic liberty with the tone of your film with 3D animation. (Colors, shadows, and attention to detail all play a part in the an animated film's tone; it's a visual medium that needs to convey a theme through using these elements.) This is difficult for me to explain since I don't study animation myself, but I've noticed that what most animated films have in common is that they have characters and/or settings that couldn't possibly exist in real life, and therefore would be weighed down by being filmed in live action no matter how much CG is used. It would probably end up looking cheap, stiff, and altogether fake. The whole point of most films in general is to present a story where things that couldn't happen in our reality happen in these stories. (As a matter a fact, this is the point of most films, TV shows, literature, plays, among other things, but that's another can of worms entirely.)

 

How do you take characters and settings that couldn't exist in live action come to life? By making them animated, of course.

 

But how do you make these things look believable in a visual medium? Simple; you make characters express emotion and move around as if they actually exist, and you make the settings compliment the visual style and artistic liberty you've settled on for these characters. (You wouldn't take a pony from MLP:FiM and place them inside a Tim Burton setting, now would you? No, the two styles completely clash in terms of visual tone, and the movements that a FiM pony would make would look odd in a Tim Burton universe. They're created and animated by two different people who use two different mediums and take completely different routes in their visual styles.)

 

In my opinion, if you want to make a character of any kind fulfill its full potential for facial expressiveness and realistic movement, 2D would give you far more opportunities to do so than 3D. If you wanted to create a film than relies heavily on the tone of its visuals to tell a story or convey a message, 2D would be your best bet as well, since you have many more elements at your disposal to do so.

Also, having characters drawn by a human hand and having their movements done frame by frame turns out much smoother and more realistic looking than most 3D films would.

 

Besides, when doing a 3D film, you have to make it realistic looking to a certain extent, since making a 3D film look too cartoony looks odd and begs the question as to why you didn't make it 2D in the first place. Also, there's really no point in making your film animated if you're just showing off how good 3D animation can be by making it look exactly like real life. (I'm looking at you, motion capture.) 

 

Have you ever seen a show or film that was animated in 3D that tries to look like 2D animation without bothering to blend 2D into it? It usually ends up looking pretty odd, and sometimes stiff, right? For me, that show's Sofia The First. Just look at these two screenshots (of Disney's Princess Jasmine, one in the show I just mentioned and one from her original feature film, Aladdin) and tell me which one looks more expressive and leaves more opportunites for fluid movement.

 

 

 

The beauty of animation is that is doesn't need to look realistic, but it needs characters to move realistically and have settings that agree with the visual style of the characters so both of these elements can work together to tell a story and convey a message or mood through its visual tone. To me, 2D animation gives animators more artistic liberty with the stories they tell, makes characters look more expressive, and puts many different visual elements at work all at once to tell a story, making for a more memorable visual experience.

Edited July 26, 2013 by eskaryel

[Party Cannon 874]

Are you talking about the actual Era's of Animation here? If so, the Golden Age was actually between the Late 20's through to the early 60's, which came after the Silent Age and before the Dark Age. The 90's was actually the Renaissance Era, and was also an era of animation I grew up on, along with the following Millennium Age, where we're currently at. (Though I'm not sure how "official" that term is.) 

 

 

Anyway, I'm an animation enthusiast. I love all forms of animation, whether it's 2D, 3D, Stop Motion, Clay Motion, Pixel Motion, whatever, I adore animation in all it's forms. I do however  have a soft spot for 2D. I'm probably a bit bias because I just finished my Bachelors degree in 2D animation, but that's how I feel nonetheless. It does hurt knowing that there's a whole generation of kids growing up in the West right now who might never get to see a 2D animated film in the cinema, unless things start changing. However, it's still good to know that there's lots of cartoons and animes on using 2D animation.

 

Do I dislike 3D animation? Of course not, as I said before, I love all forms of animation. But if I had to choose, I'd go for 2D. It just makes me warm and fuzzy inside. I know and have worked with people who despise 3D animation, and others who think 2D animation is outdated and that there's no room for it anymore.

As cheesy as it sounds, I kinda wish these people would see the beauty in both.

 

I'm not a fan of 2D films/shows that use use 3D elements as shortcuts (*cough* ballroom scene in Beauty and the Beast *cough*). Whilst I totally understand why many animations (particularly TV cartoons) do this, and I can usually overlook it and easily forgive it, I can't help but feel that it ruins the aesthetics of the show, and also make the 3D art from look cheap.

 

Saying that, when 2D and 3D are blended together with artistic intentions for aesthetic appeal, I fully support this. When done right, the results can be wonderful.

In fact, one of my favorite animated shows, Tron: Uprising, does this incredibly well.

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

Oh, and about the Clone Wars thing; The animation wasn't the only thing that changed. The original 2D series was actually run by Genndy Tartakovsky (Same guy who created Dexter's Lab and Samurai Jack). He wasn't involved in the 3D version, and the writing changed dramatically. 

 

Great to have an expert here! Fascinating info.

 

No I never meant to use the term "Golden Age" officially, rather it was meant to describe not only the immense out pour of 2D shows and full length features by studios at the time (late 80's, 1990's), but also the culturally significant items that were born out of it. Animation can be compared to comic books, in that how they have actual historical eras as you have said. For example the Silver Age of Comic Books was officially from 1956 to circa 1970. Personally however, I think of it as the Golden Age, as so many characters that are apart of our lexicon (i.e. Spiderman) were created during that time. It's human I suppose that one considers an age "golden" if so many things/events during a period of time greatly affected their culture or personally.

 

As for Clone Wars yes I am fully aware of Genndy's lack of involvement. As others have pointed out as well medium of animation is one half, and writing/story is the vital other.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Party Cannon

[TwilizzleFoShizzle 95]

I like a well executed 3D animation better than an equally well executed 2D animation, but that being said most 2D animations are easier to pull off well, meaning that on average I will enjoy a 2D one more since there will be less animation errors, choppiness, poor synchronization, etc.

[Scootalove 10,685]

I like 2D animation since if 2D wasn't invented or used in TV shows and movies then there wouldn't be 3D animation years later. I prefer 2D animation when it comes to animated films and animated TV shows while, 3D animation is pretty good for TV shows and movies since it has a more adapted feel to it while 2D animation is more traditional.

[Shanks 10,811]

This is an interesting coincidence because I thought of making a thread similar to this one, I prefer 2D over the 3D look because 2D to me looks more natural while 3D can look good even the best 3D shows can often look a bit artificial in some cases if you know what I mean. I think this is largely because 3D is still relatively new and is a long way off from realizing its full potential but is getting better and better, maybe 5 or 10 years from now 3D will have a more natural and smooth look. During the Nintendo 64 and Playstation 1 era the early 3D games had a lot of polygons but gradually became smoothed out with succeeding generations to where 3D can be so good in some games that it can seem like you are watching a movie. Because series are much more expensive and time consuming to make this level of quality is not yet feasable for 3D shows yet but I believe will be in the future.

[Darkshift 85]

I've always prefered the two dimension shows because of non-animation reasons because every 3d animation is just too similar for me to enjoy whilst there is so many good 2d animations out there

[cmarston1 5,954]

I would have to say that I like traditional animation over 3d cgi animation.

Mostly because I find 2d animation to be more gorgeous and lasts longer.

I mean look at these two pictures one is from Beauty and the Beast (1991) and the other is from Monsters inc. (2001)

It's clear to see that monsters inc. which was released 10 years after Beauty and the Beast it's animation has become a lot more dated than the later has.

Also traditional animation just feels more natural to me and it ticks me off that Disney the last company to release those type of films murdered it or at least in America. (Equestria Girls was nice, I just wish it was released in theaters normally instead of select few so I wouldn't have have to seen it on the internet.)

Edited July 27, 2013 by cmarston1

[Flutter's lover <3 8,204]

Depends really.

 

Like, as a 90s Kid...I grew up watching  quite a few 3D shows.

 

Examples being

 

ReBoot (Bucking loved this show)

 

 

 

Beasties and Beast Wars: (Another show I loved)

 

 

 

 

 

But I also like a lot of 2D animation.

 

 

Both have their pro's and con/ positives and negatives.

 

 

I say animators go to 3D for more "realism" to the shows. and go 2D for more toonyness.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Flutter Dash

[DiscordAnarchy 770]

I actually enjoy both though in terms of quality, 2D has generally been better on television than 3D. The problem is that now that 2D is being done in flash, we are dealing with a lot of trash cartoons that are made dirt-cheap and are an insult to animation (Drunkie Crow comes to mind). Also, flash animation is basically seeing character only movie their heads or arms unless a big action sequence is needed (Metalocolypse is basically everyone in 1 pose unless actual walking or singing is required) though some flash is well done (MLP).

 

3D animation suffers from budget. Ninja Turtles (2013) is so awesome but because of buget, you'll notice that 90% of the city is emptry. No traffic. No pedestrians. Nothing outside the main characters.

 

Personally, I find that people can put more detail ina 2D series. Look at Secret of Nihm or American Tale. BEAUTIFULLY animated.

 

But on the same token, Wreck it Ralph and Tangled are just purrrrfect with their colors and expressions.

 

It boils down too, mostly, how it is presented. I prefer 2D but like both.

[Hansel 1,511]

I actually enjoy both though in terms of quality, 2D has generally been better on television than 3D. The problem is that now that 2D is being done in flash, we are dealing with a lot of trash cartoons that are made dirt-cheap and are an insult to animation (Drunkie Crow comes to mind). Also, flash animation is basically seeing character only movie their heads or arms unless a big action sequence is needed (Metalocolypse is basically everyone in 1 pose unless actual walking or singing is required) though some flash is well done (MLP).

 

3D animation suffers from budget. Ninja Turtles (2013) is so awesome but because of buget, you'll notice that 90% of the city is emptry. No traffic. No pedestrians. Nothing outside the main characters.

 

Personally, I find that people can put more detail ina 2D series. Look at Secret of Nihm or American Tale. BEAUTIFULLY animated.

 

But on the same token, Wreck it Ralph and Tangled are just purrrrfect with their colors and expressions.

 

It boils down too, mostly, how it is presented. I prefer 2D but like both.

 

Actually, the majority of cartoons you see in TV are done in Toonboom, not Flash. Toonboom is also what Disney have been using for their 2D films and TV shows since the 90's. The quality of the animation doesn't necessarily have much to do with the software being used, but rather with the competence of the animators, or the time they have to work. A lot of cartoons need to be pumped out as quickly and s cheeply as possible, so the animation is minimal. This was also true when traditional animation was used for cartoons. Take a look at some of the stuff that came out during Dark Ages, like The Flintstones, Spiderman, and He Man.

 

The great thing about Flash is that it has a nifty little feature called Symbols, which allows you to create fluid animation without drawing and cleaning up every frame. Instead, you work with pre-built puppets and tweening. MLP:FiM uses this technique incredibly well. 

 

 

Great to have an expert here! Fascinating info.

 

No I never meant to use the term "Golden Age" officially, rather it was meant to describe not only the immense out pour of 2D shows and full length features by studios at the time (late 80's, 1990's), but also the culturally significant items that were born out of it. Animation can be compared to comic books, in that how they have actual historical eras as you have said. For example the Silver Age of Comic Books was officially from 1956 to circa 1970. Personally however, I think of it as the Golden Age, as so many characters that are apart of our lexicon (i.e. Spiderman) were created during that time. It's human I suppose that one considers an age "golden" if so many things/events during a period of time greatly affected their culture or personally.

 

As for Clone Wars yes I am fully aware of Genndy's lack of involvement. As others have pointed out as well medium of animation is one half, and writing/story is the vital other.

 

 

That's fair enough.

 

I don't know a great deal about comic books, so I can't say much about those. I've always been a DC person, but I was/am more interested in the animated adaptations. I did however read Batman comics, some indie comics, and a bunch of webcomics.

 

 

I say animators go to 3D for more "realism" to the shows. and go 2D for more toonyness.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 27, 2013 by Hansel

[Darker 1,351]

2D. I'm more than tired of this 3D bullcrap.

[The Crimson Cross 7,532]

3D is always preferred for me. Mainly because it's family friendly and such.

It's always reliable for general entertainment.

It's got to be good though, there's some shockers of animations out there!

[Ashen Pathfinder 16,153]

Well, I'm more of a fan of 2D hand-drawn animation, but I will admit 3D animation can be great itself.

 

As timeless as movies like Beauty & the Beast & Laputa are, Finding Nemo is still one that amazes me to this day.

[OkBuddy 586]

I like both forms of animation for what they are.

I love 2D (traditional) animation for the hand-made feel, and it gives me the feeling of wonder, being amazed that someone drew this and went through backbreaking work to get this up (although flash animation is neat, it doesn't feel the same as traditional).

2D animation also makes me feel the illusion that the characters are alive and living.

3D animation is fantastic as well, but I love the technology behind it since it can really make the world alive, as it feels like you can touch it (mostly speaking about movies). It's a blend between art and technology.

Both of the mediums have masterpieces to back them up, although I think that 2D films are lacking at this day and age (at least in North America).

[Phoenix Flair 332]

For TV shows that aren't super huge budget, I'll stick with 2D.  3D TV shows consistently look like crap, but movies aren't bad.  Frozen was great, and Tangled was pretty good.

[Megas 27,217]

2D usually looks better to me. 3D usually only works for movies for me, I mean, TMNT 2012 and Jimmy Neutron are probably the only 3D tv show that don't look like garbage, but when it comes to movies 3D usually looks great, especially if Tangled, Frozen and Wreck-it-Ralph are anything to go by

[ShintX 180]

I like both

 

2D and 3D are cool.

[Pastel 7,627]

I prefer 2D by far, I even think it's more beautiful than 3D.

But there're some great 3D movies too (every Pixar movie, Frozen etc.)

[Mr. Forest 135]

I prefer 3D when it's done right, but 2D tends to be better overall epecially for television.