Hand drawn animation is too expensive to ma-

>that pic
I hate that meme but that one's pretty funny

3D movies can export the models and make sequels, and gimp the rendering to make video games and cartoon shorts, etc.
They're more popular because all the work gets done in the first movie, and each consecutive movie has less design and development workload.

The extra 130 million is advertising, the much larger scope of animated movie production, GIANT bonuses to the already rich, and the payoff of shills on Zig Forums (which is like advertising).

>3D movies can export the models and make sequels
But how much money does this really save in the end, when your CG movie costs ten times more to produce than hand drawn?

It's not about saving money as much as it is saving time. Slap a few poses around in a day and you've got all the marketing material you need, toy blueprints shipped out to China, etc.

>average
Lol, not everybody is Don Bluth boyo. By far and wide animation usually takes longer
And as he said it's very cost effective

This post reeks of overcompensation. Permavirgin material

>so unless they churn out CG movies like Call of Duty games this is also not an argument.
But they literally do. HTTYD was redone in under a year with all the previous assets being reused. Same with Zootopia. And most of these studios churn out films once a year, at one point, Dreamworks was doing two a year.

Illumination has 8 films in 9 years while Bluth Studios made 8 films in 13 years.

According to it's Wikipedia page, Frozen 2 took 4 years to produce. So again, longer than The Secret of NIMH.

>Illumination has 8 films in 9 years while Bluth Studios made 8 films in 13 years.
And which studio produced superior films? I would happily watch Don Bluth's worst films over anything Illumination has ever created, Even A Troll in Central Park was still visually interesting and well animated.

There's a ridiculous amount of people who work on the average CG film, I swear the credits just keep getting longer and longer. How long until something more soulless and cost/time effective replaces CG?

Nigger, nobody is saying that it's a good thing lol. We're just saying unless you have fifteen million dollars to give to Don Bluth? It's unlikey for 2d animated movies to be mainstream any time soon

>They're more popular because all the work gets done in the first movie, and each consecutive movie has less design and development workload.
This is a common misconception focused entirely around not understanding that most sequels improve on the visuals of the original and are expected to. You assume "Well they did all the work with the first one, everyone after is cheaper and easier!" despite
>How to Train your Dragon
>Frozen
>Kung Fu Panda
>Wreck it Ralph
>Ice Age
>Rio
>Madagascar
>Shrek

All having budgets that are either exactly the same or go UP. Each consecutive movie is very unlikely to reuse assets for the majority of their workload. Even if the main characters and some side characters are just copy paste, they're a very small portion of an otherwise very large number of assets needed for every movie, especially if they don't just reuse the same location with no changes, which next to none actually do. You're using proof of reduced cost from movies that don't exist.

And of course even if you just were reusing models or the like, that's only a portion of the inflated cost. Rendering alone for Wreck it Ralph 2 is more expensive than 2 hours of Green Eggs and Ham's episodes.

TLDR that's not how movies work and its not why they do it, they do it because CGI is vastly more profitable than 2D.

>We're just saying unless you have fifteen million dollars to give to Don Bluth? It's unlikey for 2d animated movies to be mainstream any time soon
If I won the lottery I would absolutely fund his Dragon's Lair movie and give him complete creative freedom.

>. Same with Zootopia.
Zootopia still was in development for 3 years.

>In May 2013, The Hollywood Reporter initially reported that Howard was directing the film and that Jason Bateman had been cast, but little else about the film was known at the time.[18] Zootopia was first officially announced on August 10, 2013 at the D23 Expo, with a March 2016 release date

>they do it because CGI is vastly more profitable than 2D.
But why? Why do modern audiences prefer "photorealism" and uncanny ugliness to beautiful drawings and painted backgrounds?

Wishful thinking but unless we got any eccentric multimillionaires in the audience, wasted effort. The best you'll get are passion projects like Loving Vincent

Because early Pixar and Dreamworks 3d movies were absurdly popular and studios followed the money.

I don't know, I wish I did, but numbers sadly don't lie. Disney didn't want to kill 2D, it released a bunch of 2D in the 00's, but the fact of the matter is that neither Disney nor Dreamworks in the entire period of 2000-2020 has had a 2d movie released that made over 300 million WORLDWIDE at the box office, meanwhile Shrek dethroned Lion King and Finding Nemo made 800 million dollars. When fucking Ice Age, ICE AGE 3, made 800 million dollars and all their 2D works couldn't even reach Chicken Little's gross, it's just not smart to keep with it. Artistically better, some might argue even if I disagree, but not smart.

I always thought it was an issue of time and labor?

I also suppose that, for actual high profile films technology marches on and you have to update or just outright remake your assets and render that shit again cause otherwise they're gonna look like outdated shit
>TLDR that's not how movies work and its not why they do it, they do it because CGI is vastly more profitable than 2D.
I once read an interview with the Miraculous Ladybug creator where they asked him why the change to 3DCGI, and he said it was because the higher ups thought 3D was just more popular

This is the movie that killed 2D in Cinemas.

Attached: the last.jpg (535x344, 44.13K)

I really think the next big advance is going to be 3D modeling in VR.
There are some gimmicky programs that let you draw in VR or maybe manipulate geometry to a limited extent.
But real 3D modelling is still done with a mouse and keyboard.
How great it would be to boot up Maya VR or 3DS Max VR.
Just grab the damn polygon and manually stretch and place it.
If you wanted to make a groove along a surface you could just select a tool based on the cross section you want, then drag along controlling depth and direction in 6 axis movement.
Just being able to rapidly look at your model from every angle in real time. Need a quick peek to see if something is clipping? Just duck your head inside the model then back out. Your body will naturally return to the same position without having to fiddle with viewport cameras.

So many possibilities that would make modelling faster and more intuitive.

And in those 3 years, two other films were able to be released (BH6 and Frozen) WHILE Zootopia was able to do a rehaul with its entire story several times.

Here is a breakdown why despite CG costing more on the surface for a budget-per-film, it is still cheaper than 2D:

>Easier to train people because of homogenization. A good CG animator is able to learn faster than a good 2D draftsman. This also means you don't need as many "specialized" people. You don't need to seek out godtier artists who are amazing at oil painting for layouts, everyone is all working on the same CG models and engines.
>It is faster to get animators to start on a production. They don't need three months prep time to get good at drawing a single character like 2D character animators back in the day.
>Lack of CG unions means you can hire 200 CG animators for the same price as 80 2D animators. CG animators also don't need as much physical working space or storage space, compared to 2D animators who need boxes upon boxes just to archive the cel work for one scene.
>Re-used assets means you can do more with less.

So yes, maybe Frozen's budget was $150 mil. But the crew was larger than Little Mermaid, all of that money did NOT go into the artists' wages, and the cost for maintaining a CG studio in the long run is still lower than maintaining a 2D animation team with union benefits.

Also, as we learned from Descpiable Me and Captain Underpants, CG films CAN cost extremely low. Disney just chooses to pump a lot of money in tech dev, celebrity actors, lots of "reshoots", and other luxury production things.

LAIKA keeps making stop-motion movies even though they flop in theaters.

i would not mind being paid $7.25 to do traditional animation but the only the way i'd do it is they gave me free health care

This is very much the case with a lot of texturing, something like Frozen 2 had to completely update their rushed graphics that came from the heavy rewrites of the later stages of the first movie, which is why Else and Anna look more detailed and less 'sharp' in the followup. The castle textures had to be redone, so no more of those weird brick clippings, Olaf was completely redone because they had figured out how to incorporate a new system of particle effects(Shown off in the Into the Unknown sequence), and so on. Shrek 3 couldn't have the character look like the first movie's dated graphics anymore.

You also have to remember Hiccup grew up between movies so they had to redo every character from scratch, pretty much. But those movies were also profitable, so...

>I once read an interview with the Miraculous Ladybug creator where they asked him why the change to 3DCGI, and he said it was because the higher ups thought 3D was just more popular
Sadly they're right, as far as I can tell. I don't have a single point of data to show 2D is preferred anywhere besides maybe Japan, and even then those fuckers LOVED Frozen.