What Happened To 2D Animated Movies?

I had a quick think recently and realized that there's barely any 2D animation getting released into the cinema these days. There's more than enough 3D animations, and I got nothing against them, but what happened to the good old 2D animated films? Did Disney destroy the genre they once created with all them half hearted straight to video sequels?

Enchanted and Princess and the Frog.

Apparently it doesn't make them enough money though.

Enchanted and Princess and the Frog.

Apparently it doesn't make them enough money though.

Iostlemon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5dB_9dW2SQ

[QUOTE="Iostlemon"]

Enchanted and Princess and the Frog.

Apparently it doesn't make them enough money though.

Serraph105

well the japanese still haven't 2d animated movies and it doesn't look they will die out anytime soon. plus there isn't a lot of cg japanese movies either from what I'm seeing.

whats wrong tangled? I heard that was good movie. 

TheShadowLord07

tangled is an average movie IMO, they try to appeal to both boys and girls hence the title and fail to fully deliver,the music is weak compared to enchanted. but thumbs up on the actor who did the vocals, i cant believe that it was Zack Levi from chuck :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5dB_9dW2SQ

sammyjenkis898

Speaking of Ghibli films, From Up on Poppy Hill is coming out on the third of September; I'm looking forward to seeing it. 

2D is gone, when Disney laid off all their 2d artists, that was it. A end to an era. I watch Arriety the other day and it was just a gorgeous movie. To bad we are computer generating everything

Animated movies are for kids. Kids is where the money is at. I mean sure a lot of adults who grew up on 2d animation still love it but the bottom line is they arent the biggest source of income. The most money to be made is on the kids who want their parents to take them to see the movie, buy the movie when it comes out on disc/on demand, buy the toys, buy the cheap little toys that come out for the movie, buy the video games based on the movie, buy the plush dolls and so on. And kids today treat 3d animated movies like adults did 2d back in their day. So most kids dont want 2d because they are used to 3d animated movies.

Animated movies are for kids. Kids is where the money is at. I mean sure a lot of adults who grew up on 2d animation still love it but the bottom line is they arent the biggest source of income. The most money to be made is on the kids who want their parents to take them to see the movie, buy the movie when it comes out on disc/on demand, buy the toys, buy the cheap little toys that come out for the movie, buy the video games based on the movie, buy the plush dolls and so on. And kids today treat 3d animated movies like adults did 2d back in their day. So most kids dont want 2d because they are used to 3d animated movies.

Gargus

It's a shame that it has to be like that. There's nothing inferior about a 2D animated movie in comparison to a 3D one. They used to make 3D ones alongside 2D ones all the time. So it can't be that technology is advancing and has left 2D irrelevant. Some of the kids I know still watch old 2D movies today, so the market can't be completely dead.

I mean just look at the Lion King intro. 2D animations can easily look just as stunning as any 3D movie in their own special way. It's not going to look better than Avatar (if by better you think realisitic looking) or anything, but it's got it's own awe inspiring charm to it.

[QUOTE="Gargus"]

Animated movies are for kids. Kids is where the money is at. I mean sure a lot of adults who grew up on 2d animation still love it but the bottom line is they arent the biggest source of income. The most money to be made is on the kids who want their parents to take them to see the movie, buy the movie when it comes out on disc/on demand, buy the toys, buy the cheap little toys that come out for the movie, buy the video games based on the movie, buy the plush dolls and so on. And kids today treat 3d animated movies like adults did 2d back in their day. So most kids dont want 2d because they are used to 3d animated movies.

sune_Gem

It's a shame that it has to be like that. There's nothing inferior about a 2D animated movie in comparison to a 3D one. They used to make 3D ones alongside 2D ones all the time. So it can't be that technology is advancing and has left 2D irrelevant. Some of the kids I know still watch old 2D movies today, so the market can't be completely dead.

I mean just look at the Lion King intro. 2D animations can easily look just as stunning as any 3D movie in their own special way. It's not going to look better than Avatar (if by better you think realisitic looking) or anything, but it's got it's own awe inspiring charm to it.

Oh its not dead, but Im talking mainstream here and mainstream is all about money.

I prefer hand drawn 2d art in animation, but when todays kids grow up Im sure the majority of them will always like 3d animation vs whatever is out when they are grown up. But thats the way things go, every generation tends to prefer things the way they are when they grow up.

I liked the hand drawn feeling of 2d. But I can also admit that 3d animated stuff like monsters university have amazing detail and colors not possible using hand drawn 2d methods. Pixar does amazing beautiful work with their stuff. My prefernce is 2d but I can appreciate what computer generated 3d art can bring to the table.

I miss 2D movies.

Anme movies are still pretty much 2D

Pixar.

Pixar had a long series of very successful films that championed 3D animation.

At the same time, 2D was hitting a low point in creative ideas as the Disney Renaissance end. 

This is were garbage like Home on the Range got released & bombed.

Studio excecs took this as 2D box office dieing, so switch over to funding 3D films. 

Once Disney abandoned 2D, every US film animation studio followed, which just left TV(giving 2D a TV only reputation)

Now, when 2D actually makes it to theater, it has to fight the TV movie reputation.(AKA, they won't make Pixar of Dreamworks numbers, though they are like 1/3 the cost)

Intrestingly enough, one of the last execs pushing for 2D now is the former head of Pixar, now current head of all Disney animation.

Pixar.

Pixar had a long series of very successful films that championed 3D animation.

At the same time, 2D was hitting a low point in creative ideas as the Disney Renaissance end. 

This is were garbage like Home on the Range got released & bombed.

Studio excecs took this as 2D box office dieing, so switch over to funding 3D films. 

Once Disney abandoned 2D, every US film animation studio followed, which just left TV(giving 2D a TV only reputation)

Now, when 2D actually makes it to theater, it has to fight the TV movie reputation.(AKA, they won't make Pixar of Dreamworks numbers, though they are like 1/3 the cost)

Intrestingly enough, one of the last execs pushing for 2D now is the former head of Pixar, now current head of all Disney animation.

dercoo

Curse you Pixar and your incredibly good films!

I think it's hit the point where 3D animated movies are cheaper and easier to make than traditional animated films.  It's probably one of the reasons Disney got rid of their traditional animation division.

I think it's hit the point where 3D animated movies are cheaper and easier to make than traditional animated films.  It's probably one of the reasons Disney got rid of their traditional animation division.

Hallenbeck77

Granted we could still get 3D movies that look like "2D" movies after seeing Paperman.

I think it's hit the point where 3D animated movies are cheaper and easier to make than traditional animated films.  It's probably one of the reasons Disney got rid of their traditional animation division.

Hallenbeck77

Actually no,

2D is still cheaper (significantly so)

Compare Princess & the Frog's Budget: 105 million

Tangled: 260 million

Same studio, 155 million budget difference (stats from wiki)

And to add salt to the wound,

The academy award winning Spirited Away: 1.5 billion (yen), 19 million dollars

[QUOTE="Hallenbeck77"]

I think it's hit the point where 3D animated movies are cheaper and easier to make than traditional animated films.  It's probably one of the reasons Disney got rid of their traditional animation division.

dercoo

Actually no,

2D is still cheaper (significantly so)

Compare Princess & the Frog's Budget: 105 million

Tangled: 260 million

Same studio, 155 million budget difference (stats from wiki)

And to add salt to the wound,

The academy award winning Spirited Away: 1.5 billion (yen), 19 million dollars

It's kind of sad how limited people are for comparison now. There's just so few recent 2D films out.

I think it's hit the point where 3D animated movies are cheaper and easier to make than traditional animated films.  It's probably one of the reasons Disney got rid of their traditional animation division.

Hallenbeck77

the rendering that takes the most of the budget, i think when they go for the paperman route, it would be cheaper

You don't HAVE to watch animated movies in 3D. I find that if it is a good movie (good plot, characters, etc) it doesn't matter if it's 2D or 3D. Case in point: I saw Despicable Me 2 this past weekend. I enjoyed it immensely - in 2D.

I never bother with 3D (besides, I usually get a serious headache when I watch 3D). There's a lot of films out there that are BAD 3D movies. They should have spent the money on the plot instead of 3D!

You don't HAVE to watch animated movies in 3D. I find that if it is a good movie (good plot, characters, etc) it doesn't matter if it's 2D or 3D. Case in point: I saw Despicable Me 2 this past weekend. I enjoyed it immensely - in 2D.

I never bother with 3D (besides, I usually get a serious headache when I watch 3D). There's a lot of films out there that are BAD 3D movies. They should have spent the money on the plot instead of 3D!

Detroit222

You don't HAVE to watch animated movies in 3D. I find that if it is a good movie (good plot, characters, etc) it doesn't matter if it's 2D or 3D. Case in point: I saw Despicable Me 2 this past weekend. I enjoyed it immensely - in 2D.

I never bother with 3D (besides, I usually get a serious headache when I watch 3D). There's a lot of films out there that are BAD 3D movies. They should have spent the money on the plot instead of 3D!

Detroit222

You got the wrong kind of 3D. I'm talking about films that are done on paper (figuratively speaking) over ones rendered in 3D.

There's lots of 2D Superhero films. DC has made like 10 in the past 5 years.

Oh in theaters. Yeah you're right.

How many 2d TV shows are there compared to 3d?LOXO7

The Princess and the Frog was Disney's big move back into 2D and like someone else said it apparently didn't make them enough money

but IDK why it is one of my Disney top 3.

[QUOTE="Iostlemon"]

Enchanted and Princess and the Frog.

Apparently it doesn't make them enough money though.

Serraph105

The Princess and the Frog was Disney's big move back into 2D and like someone else said it apparently didn't make them enough money

but IDK why it is one of my Disney top 3.

MissLibrarian

The sad thing is, it did make a gross profit (signighantly so by a  2.5x ratio)

However, Disney seemed more concered on maxumising gross over maximising return on investment.

I was hoping that, with John Lasseter taking over the creative aspects of the Walt Disney Animation Studios, they would increase the investments on 2-D movies. However, even if that seemed to be the case at first, with Princess and the Frog then Winnie The Pooh, they have dropped that kind of animation once more.

So it's up to Studio Ghibli to carry that torch.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="Iostlemon"]

Enchanted and Princess and the Frog.

Apparently it doesn't make them enough money though.

lightleggy

I thought she became a frog? :?

I haven't seen the film fully to know. :lol:

Come to think of it, that may have been a sequel or such that I caught on TV.