Audiences have lost interest in 2D animation, which is why hand-drawn animated movies are almost non existant these days. And you can't make a business with something audiences have no longer interest in. When Tiana kissed the box office, it did not turn into a prince, and Disney's first CGI fairytale "Tangled" was highly successful, beating Aladdin for the honor of being the 2nd-highest grossing movie in the Disney Animated Canon behind "The Lion King".
@Serdikhan You know w.h.a.t.e.v.e.r. Nothing you can say is gonna stop me from creating my own 2d movie/s someday :d And maybe I shall go bankrupt, but who cares? All I want is for there to be good movies out there, if there really were people would notice them eventually. It's not about what makes the most money, it's about making something you actually care about. People like you opening your traps are going to make 2d extinct before I even get a chance though, and you need to shut up.
@TheSlaveShow Oh, so you're saying all 3D movies are garbage all because they're computer animated and nothing else. How shallow are you? Who cares you say, I think you do and you would cuz everybody hates going bankrupt. Notice what? Everyone knows about 2D animation, and they know it's an outdated thing these days. Computer animation makes hand-drawn animation look like it's just for children instead of mainstream audiences, which is why they prefer 3D. Times have changed and won't change back
@Serdikhan I'm not aiming for mainstream, I'm doing what I personally enjoy, which is what all successful people do. I feel sorry for you if you actually like crap like Rio and Monsters vs Aliens and the other equivalent junk they come out with now. You think I'm 'shallow' when in truth I'm just too deep to be satisfied by the utter garbage everyone else is apparently into, because they lack the imagination to come up with anything better. I'll always associate CGI with crappy heartless movies.
@TheSlaveShow WHERE THE HELL DID I SAY I LIKE THOSE MOVIES? WHERE AT ALL DID I SAY WHAT MOVIES I LIKE? And you're not deep, you're shallow and racist. WE HAVE A CRAP LOAD OF SHITTY HAND-DRAWN MOVIES TOO IN CASE YOU'RE TOO SHALLOW TO NOTECE. AND DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME YOU EVEN REMOTELY ENJOY ANY OF THEM IN THE LEAST.
And a hand-drawn Rapunzel movie is one of world's worst ideas, proven by Disney's Tangled. Your video's a load of crap, it has unconvinng drawings and no animation what-so-ever.
@Serdikhan Yep, there are a million idiotic hand drawn movies too, but at least the art is imaginative. As for the rest of your comment blah blah blah circles circles circles. You may as well re-read the whole argument since you aren't bringing up any new points I haven't already countered a billion times.
@TheSlaveShow Hand-drawn animated movie have limited imagination, cuz they're hand-drawn, the moving things can't allow itself details, decorations, elaborations or anything complex. Unlike handrawn, CGI is limitless and can allow the user to do everything, plus it saves paper. Bonus. For a video about animation, I haven't a single piece of animation, nothing is moving, oh god, animate something. 0:46 This picture's pathetic. So basic, so undecorated, so unelaborate, so uncomplex. So sad.
@Serdikhan You mean details like boring realistic textures? Who cares? It shouldnt have to be realistic because that IS limiting.And I have yet to see them do something truly creative with CGI, because it sure all looks the same to me. AND FOR THE LAST TIME I AM EVER GOING TO SAY THIS that was the only danged picture I could find of rapunzle for this video for crying out loud what your being is called close minded. I assumed the idiots watching this would get my POINT not be irrelevant.
@TheSlaveShow Realistic textures are not boring, because of the fact it's not live-action, thus we enjoy the amount of effort that was put into those things. And really, no shading, how pathetic is it for a 21 century hand-drawn animated movie to not have shading. Hand-drawn is always more limited than CGI. Hand-drawn will never ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever measure up to what you can do with computers. There's only so much complexity and elaboration that 2D allows.
@Serdikhan I thought tangled was a kids movie, and since when do kids give half a dead minnow about how much detail was put into the art? Its not fun looking that way. So youre saying it appeals to the adults who are the ones with the money, correct? My point is proven.
@TheSlaveShow Do you even make sense, or do you just randomly put words together in your favor. Tangled is a mainstream movie like Beauty and the Beast, if it was just a kids movie, it would have been something like the Care Bears or something. And everyone appreciates good-looking movies, visuals are a big part of the experience from a movie and are always important. All you do is mumble. If you have proven anything is that 2D looks fucking boring compared to what 3D has to offer.
@Serdikhan You obviously know nothing of kids if you think any of them actualy enjoy care bears.Thats whats wrong with people like you -_- You assume its what makes the most money that people like the best.Well people regret spending their money you know (mostly adults at that). It shouldnt be about money at all.I actually happen to know a lot of people who dislike CGI.Have you even talked to anyone besides your close minded self?Just because it makes more money doesnt mean people wont regret it
@Serdikhan Oh really? I dont remember my opinion getting asked when they did their research. In fact I dont think they ASK anyone anything. They just assume whatvever makes the most money is the best, because its better for them of course.
@TheSlaveShow Time changes, and things change along with it. Obviously since CGI animated movies make more money, it's clear people are more interested in computer animation, than they are hand-drawn animation. Whatever plans people had for a hand-drawn animation feature, they should have done it back in the 90s, back when computer animation was new and hadn't overshadowed 2D. No 2D animated movie has joined the top 10 animated movies list since 1994's Lion King. And Disney's Aladdin is at #20.
@TheSlaveShow Great, you haven't answered my first question, and now you're making me to repeated with with what you've wrote. When you're asked a question, answered it!
@Serdikhan So your question is what do I mean by there are no good movies in the world? Well, there are some...but not very many at all. Most of them are just made for money.
@TheSlaveShow How the hell does the simple reason that a movie is made for money (which every movie in existance is made for, with no exceptions what-so-ever) means that the movie is bad? What a completely ridiculous thought. It actually even goes beyond ridiculous. And you still you haven't answered the question.
@Serdikhan Theyre ALL made for money? That's terrible o_o No wonder so many of them stink!! You just proved my point. I mean do you really think the people who make these movies actually care what happens to their characters? About how the story ends? About anything other than the money? No they don't. An example of a good story would be something like Harry Potter (something the author actually cares about themself and therefore other people like it). An example of a bad story is something like
@Serdikhan (continued) the incredibles because it's so shallow. CGI is just a part of the era of heartless movies, where they can't even put their heart into the art anymore.
@TheSlaveShow Making up pathetic excuses has never helped anyone and it's certainly not helping you or whatever you're saying. I'd sure love to see if you can sink any lower. What the fuck is this heart shit you speak of. People don't care what style the movie is done in, they only care about the movie itself. What, you're saying even one of the shittiest 2D animated movies has more heart than one of the best CGI animated movies of all time. You need a professional therapist. YOU'RE SICK!
@Serdikhan Ok now I 'answered your question' and it's 'an excuse'? Go back and re-read what I said if thats what you think. I said movies should have heart put into them. From what Ive seen most 2d animated movies have more heart put into them than most CGI movies (at least in the art) . And if YOU really dont care what style a movie is done in then why are you arguing...? And yeahhh I really wouldnt expect you to know what heart is...*cough* money lover *cough*
@TheSlaveShow Nothing. You've seen nothing. And you never will. What the fuck do you know about art? You're using a super pathetic and lousy computer drawing with no artistic value of Rapunzel do demostrate 2D. Since no one in the whole wide world has any evidence what-so-ever that Tangled would have been better in 2D, I'm not surprised I'm looking at pathetic puctures that won't even make it into a children's coloring book. AND WHY TANGLED? You couldn't think of a better way to make this video?
@Serdikhan I already countered those 'points' of yours a million times. Maybe you just need to shut up now. Youre obviously just some big mouthed no lifer who can argue with people on youtube for years. Go argue about the lyrics in goof troop like it matters or like any of your points matter at all...Youre a complete waste of time and I dont wanna humor you anymore. -_-
@TheSlaveShow I never felt humored by you. In fact, I don't think you even tried to humor me. This is just one of your pathetic excuses to cover your mistake- and nonsense-filled video that hasn't inspired anyone to do as it says. What an effortless and lousy piece of work you put in a video was suppose to inspire people without insulting their intelligence or their interest in CGI animation.
@Serdikhan This isnt an excuse for you to start another argument about whether or not i was humoring you. What the heck is your point arguing about everything possible on the internet?? Get a life!!!! You honestly dont think thats a little bit sad? I guess the little girl has to be the mature one here. *blocks*
The world is moving forward with CGI and other visual technologies. Move forward dude. Tangled is a very good (and mathematically complex) movie besides. People like you nowadays are becoming extinct. CGI is a good medium. And there's nothing you can do to erase it in this world. It's like moving time backwards. IMPOSSIBLE.
@TheSlaveShow You're just pure nonsense. You just can't accept that CG Animation is taking the world, and 2D had become a second "optional" option for the moviegoers nowadays. I have nothing against 2D, it's a very good medium for 30-minute-to-an-hour TV toons. All you have to do is to accept. Yeah. The word is accept. You'll die attempting to kill CGI, and you will surely die lost in this war. But again, it's okay to dream though.
@TheSlaveShow Yeah. Yours will be unique because your graphics will be crappy. More crappy than the traditional 2D movies Disney and other studios ever produced. And if you ever finished your "movie" then send that video to me. No, no, no. That would be a waste of time for me.
@olivergalleguez It won't be crappy. Lol XD Why would it be? Because you think I'd need a lot of money? I intend to get my way using pure talent. Yes sir, as soon as someone discovers my brilliance I will surely send the trailer of my movie to you.
@TheSlaveShow This video is more about Tangled than anything. And you yourself haven't stopped talking about it to the point of you saying it was Disney's loss, even though they haven't lost anything whatsoever from this movie. You don't want 2D animation back. According to this video, all you want is Tangled to have been 2D animated. That's it, that's all there is to this video. Just a whiny girl who has no respect for Tangled's work and prefers to overlook stuff before coming to conclusions.
@Serdikhan I used tangled as an example, because that's what we were originally talking about.Yes, the reason I'm saying tangled is bad in cgi is the same reason I'm saying all cgi is bad. Disney and any other companies that replace 2d with cgi have lost a lot. They lost sight of what animation really IS. Youve blinded yourself because your a disney worshipping no lifer who assumes they can do no wrong and has nothing better to do than harass kids on youtube. O.o
@TheSlaveShow Since no one talks about it anymore (for obvious reasons), it means this video is outdated. You're completely wasting everyone's time talking about Tangled. And what the fuck has the other studios lost? Lots of financial failures and high chances of backruptcy, who wouldn't want to lose that. Tangled is much better as a CGI movie, since it has the formula, characters movements, dialog and humor for a CGI movie and doesn't have anything for a 2D movie.
@Serdikhan Well, your always welcome to stop commenting for one. Oh please. Really, dont even get me started on the "characters humor and dialog"....And maybe the only reason these companies are "going bankrupt" is because they cant shell out decent stories anymore, ever think of that? You think animation is getting crappier...the stories are utter garbage.
@TheSlaveShow Decent stories? No, I don't. The Princes And The Frog couldn't even reach a pathetic $300 Million worldwide, despite having a georgeous poster that only contained classic 90s stuff and nothing modern, and despite the fact that the movie has the same formula as the other Disney Princess movies, The latest of which were big successes back in their day, which of course was before the 21st century. So no, I don't blame the stories. CGI animation dominates the markets, 2D feels outdated
@Serdikhan Thats because that "formula" is over used and everyone knew that and didnt waste their time seeing it. Open your eyes -_- Movies today are pathetic. All they are are retellings, dumbed down versions of books, shameful remakes of old cartoons and other various unoriginal crap.
@TheSlaveShow So you're saying it's story that prevents 2D animated feautures from being success at the box office. You just encouraged people to give up on 2D even more. Guess that explains why so many 2D animated feauture projects were cancelled. And since people have no idea what the fuck stories people want from a 2D animated feature nowadays, and they don't wanna risk with gambling, it's no surprise 2D is still not brought back. If 2D doesn't prove to be moneymaking again, it won't be back.
@Serdikhan If someone did a decent 2d animated story it would be fine. Besides, not all CGI movie stories are so hot either. Im going to have my own movie someday and you can just see. You can just see. -_-
P.S. Hand-drawn animation is pretty much out of style and nothing will ever make people act like computer animation and internet don't exist, you know, they way things were before the late 90s. Do you know those silly, stupid animated movies like the Care Bears. In the 80s you can get away with such movies in theatres. Today you can't. Get with the fucking time. Perhaps you know, you can make CGI cartoons that look like they're 2D, like Danny Phantom, or hand-drawn like Phineas and Ferb.
P.S. Tangled is by far the worst example of a movie to be talking about 2D stuff. Tangled doesn't encourage 2D in any way. And 2D has it's flaws too you know. Tangled is by far the most artistic use of CGI I've ever seen, the colorfulness, the complexity, the details, the lovely oli-painting look, the beautiful, enchanting imagery. You don't see that in other animated movies, 2D or CGI. Tangled's CGI is one of a kind and FYI people are glad it wasn't 2D. 2D simply cannot compete with Tangled.
Wow, that's amazing. How did you managed to get EVERYTHING wrong in this video. The movie you use as an example is wrong, the pictures you use as an example are wrong. It's all wrong. How do you expect people to get your point if you don't show it properly. Children's book pictures and a movie that looks better as a computer animated movie rather than a hand-drawn animated movie, is not the way to do this video.
@Serdikhan You already said that and I already explained why. Stop making me have to keep rewording the same thing over and over you close minded clawker or im going to start copying and pasting the exact same answer every time you comment snot brain.
@TheSlaveShow You did? Really? Well, whatever it was I'm sure it didn't made sense, because in a video that gets everything wrong, nothing makes sense.
@TheSlaveShow It was probably some shit like because all the other fairytale movies were hand-drawn even though neither of them had to battle with hair physics, hair lusciousness and complex, detailed clothing, like Tangled. No no has evidence that Tangled should have been hand-drawn and thay never will.
@Serdikhan That's right, close minded people never will have any evidence. Neither will you have any evidence of why it had to be CGI. Oh wait let me guess....money? -_-
@TheSlaveShow If it was money, than The Princess and the Frog would have CGi too, but it wasn't. And you must be one of those close minded people you speak of since even you don't have evidence that Tangled should have been hand-drawn.
@Serdikhan Evidence: 1. 2d simply looks better. 2. 2d takes more talent and is therefore better. 3. CGI is ugly. 4. Tangled did NOT have things that "needed" to be in CGI 0_o 5. just the fact that CGI is cheaper should show you something. CGI animation is just mutilated cartoons. And everyone knows they only made TPATF because they knew a black princess would rake in the money anyway. You think disney cares what the audience enjoys anymore? LOL good one XD They just want the cash.
@TheSlaveShow Wow you're stupid, I asked for evidence for Tangled only, not your lousy stereotypical opinion about 2D and CGI in general. 1. 2. 3. & 5. have no useful information what-so-ever, 4. - the reason why Tangled was CGI was because the movie required things that aren't able to be pulled of in 2-D, like rotation the camera scenes, Rapunzel's luscious and shiny hair, which is why people are glad it was CGI, and of course the clothing which is so impressive, it has it's own analysis page.
@Serdikhan Then why didnt they just use live action? Tangled was no reason to mutilate cartoon animation. and "FYI" even a lot disney animators wanted 2d. Wow so if it was 2d they wouldnt have been able to show a few boring shots of grass? And hair could still be awesome in 2d if they used their imaginations. As for "the oil painting look" or whatever...huh??? There was no such creative thing in that movie. That was the old idea they decided wouldnt make enough money remember??
@TheSlaveShow Cuz then it won't be called an animated movie, duh. How many idiot questions are you gonna ask? And what idiot doesn't know the difference between how live-action looks and how computer animation looks. No one stupid enough to confuse the two or get away with passing one as the other.
I believe the world all agrees that Tangled is better the way it is, instead of 2D.
There's no way in hell you can make a video that encourages 2D. Compared to CGI, 2D looks like it's for kids only
@Serdikhan EXACTLY IT WOULDNT BE AN ANIMATED MOVIE IDIOT. Thats my point. There are cartoons (2d) and live action (real people). Anything else is a mutilated insult unless it's a video game. Disney was meant to be hand drawn not made by machines instead of talented people. Dont go on a lecture about how "they are talented". 2d animators are MORE talented. they just use the others cuz theyre cheaper. They were too scared to make tangled 2d and it was their loss.
@TheSlaveShow If it's not live-action, than it's animated, DUH IDIOT. Don't you know that anything that's not live-action is animation. Stop-mothing, hand-drawn, computer animated.
WHERE ARE YOUR FUCKING EVIDENCE THAT TANGLED WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE EYE-PLEASING IN 2D. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE, CUZ THEY NEVER DID ANY 2D SAMPLES FOR CAMPARISON.
AND HOW IS THEIR LOSS? Tangled is critically acclaimed and it's Disney's highest-grossing movie in their Animated Canon since The Lion King.
2D hand draw animation has a special place in my heart but I like 3D animation just the same. To me animation is animation no matter what format it's in. I have no problem with the way Tangled looks either. I don't really care how real or cartoony characters look just as long it does it's job of telling the story or bring the point across.
@XeroBlue I agree its good when they actually get a decent story across but i think EVERYTHING matters INCLUDING animation and you can't deny that 2d animation is simply better.
That's like saying live action is better and animation.
No REAL animator with any grain of sense is going to tell that 3D is better than 3D or vice versa.
Just like live-action, both 2D and 3D animation have their pros and cons over each other and their they own aesthetic appeal but none are overall better than the other.
The simple fact that you called CG animators untalented and suggested CG animation as something other that REAL animation leads me to believe that you are speaking from a place of ignorance and have no idea of what real animation is.
@XeroBlue So what are you saying? CGI animation is better than 2D? Is it? No. That's my whole point. Why are they doing it then? Because it's cheaper. Money's what it's all about. If they wanted to do what was fully best they'd stick to 2D.
i prefer the 2d picture of that girl and i agree that realistic isnt creative but i think it would be good if they used unique pictures like spongebob etc but made him 3d but dont change any of the drawing just make it 3d
I'm actually fine with how Tangled looked in 3D. Still, it certainly would be nice to see some 2D movies as well. But don't hate on 3D just because they're not making 2D anymore. Studios nowadays are just paying too much attention to their new toys that they come out with a lacking story. So remember. 3D, 2D, live action, i don't care. Just give me some good stories PLEASE the disney movies back in the 90s were the besttttt. I wish you the best of luck in reviving 2D animation. I'll welcome it.
@KageKevSama I care about the art a lot actually, because I want to be an animator, but I could also go on and on about the over used plots too :/ I agree with you totally that the old disneys were the best!
@TheSlaveShow It's IMPOSSIBLE. No man with a brain cell will even think of making a 2D Rapunzel movie, unless you know, it's made by a cheap studio, like all the studios who made their own 40 minute Rapunzel cartoon. Yes, cartoon, not a movie, cartoon. Disney's Rapunzel was in Development Hell and threfore it cost $260 Million to get it finished. Good thing it was CGI cuz otherwise the company might go bankrupt and no longer make animated movies.
@Serdikhan What youre saying doesnt even make sense. It is darn well possible to still make 2d animated movies. Yes rapunzel shouldve been one of them. If they thought they couldnt do a good enough job on it then maybe they shouldnt be making movies at all.
@TheSlaveShow YOU CAN IMAGINE HOW CRAPPY THE MOVIE WOULD HAVE LOOKED IF IT WAS 2D, WHICH IS WHY IT WAS NEVER PLANNED TO BE A 2D ANIMATED MOVIE. There's barely a single 2D-animated feature
THERE'S NO LAW ABOUT WHAT MOVIES YOU'RE MAKING JUST AS LONG AS YOU'RE MAKING MOVIES. "2D animation" almost became a dead genre in the early 2000s because of the failures of some 2D animated films back then. Because of this everyone is keeping 2D animation to a minumum in order to avoid disaster.
@Serdikhan Whatever. All i know is someday Im gonna be rich with my 2d animated movies that everyone else was afraid to make and you can sit in the audience and cry.
@Serdikhan No i wont becuase i have a plan that i dont have to explain....yet. You want to know whats wrong with CGI? Okay here it is: It stifles creativity. There you go. Why would you want a cheap copy of cartoons when you can have the real deal?
@Serdikhan Besides shouldnt the audience be more interested in the PLOT of the movie or did disney think they couldnt make rapunzel interesting enough so they had to make a big deal about how real her hair looks to make it sound all cool in the previews?
There are so many things wrong with this video, I don't know where to start. Lets start that this video seems to be almost all about Tangled being in 2D and almost nothing to do with bringing 2D animation back. Second, using what looks like children's book pictures to represent 2D and CGI animation is very wrong. And third, people have to have an IQ of below 0 if they can't tell the difference between live-action and computer animation. Hello, it's computer animation, not SFX
@Serdikhan I never saw avatar and i dont care to. I was using tangled as an example to represent all cgi movies. I used pictures that "looked like they were from childrens books" because its all they had and i hoped people wouldnt be so idiotic that they wouldnt understand what i was trying to say with them. happy?
@Serdikhan and i love how you dont even DENY its just for money. Since people can tell the difference between animated movies and live action then WHATS THE POINT OF TRYING MAKING IT LOOK REAL? Tell me. Whats the point? I wanna know. You never told me. Money? I rest my case.
@Serdikhan CGI is MUTILATING CARTOONS AND NORMAL CARTOONS ARE BETTER THAN THIS INBETWEEN CRUD. Only people who no nothing about art "love" it and even disney animators agree 2d was better. So why do they make cgi? for money of course. The selfish gits.
the only thing i like cgi stuff in is video games like the beatles rock band but i like the fact tht in the beatles cartoon from the 60s they drew it looking cartoonish and it was still epic
The reason why the Rapunzel movie should have been CGI are far greater than the reasons why 2D. You can tell by the many necessary spin shots of the enviroment.
Disney is fudgin stupid, ruining Club penguin, Rapunzel and hippys aren't allowed to work at Disney Land! I am serious, yuor not allowed to work at Disney Land/World and have facial hair
This looks an awfully like a video for how to draw children's books instead of how to draw a 2D animated movie. Both the 2D and CGI Rapunzel in this video look like children book pictures as oppose to 2D and CGI animation.
@Serdikhan its not my fault they only had stupid pictures of rapunzel ok? get over that and like i said before use your brain so that maybe you can actually understand what im trying to say huh?!
If you're actually 14 like your profile says and the picture in the video is an example of your recent drawings, you have no business criticizing the AMAZING artwork in Tangled. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on which style they prefer, but calling cgi an "insult" to your dream career as a cartoonist?! Ridiculous. Put more effort into your own work before you insult professionals who actually know what they're doing.
@MlleMonarch actually im 15 and that pic in the video is really old o_e. you have no buisness criticizing MY work when you dont even know it k snot? Anywhoo theres something about unoriginal cgi animation that i dont find "amazing" and maybe if you were open minded you could see it too. whether im a good animator yet or not is beside the point completely. i bet you cant sing but you dont wanna listen to music by someone else who cant :)
@TheSlaveShow Well... thought the realism is impressive I do think that the more creative ideas thought of by everyday people are a lot more interesting because theyre UNIQUE. i wouldnt want everything looking the same either, so i support you :)
@TheSlaveShow Judging by what 2D has to compete with, fights for 2D to continue won't show any results. Disney will be the only American animation studio making 2D feaures and those 2D features will be relesed every two years and that's that.
@Serdikhan No because im going to bring 2d back. Im just a kid now but im going to bring it back when i can and im gonna keep protesting cgi right now.
@Serdikhan its just like it shows in the video. trying to make a cartoon look as realistic as possible is wrong. it shouldnt even be considered a "cartoon". I find it sad that they've found ways to add realistic looking textures and stuff. it defeats the whole purpose of cartoons because it looks real! so you might as well be saying you dont think disney should make cartoons anymore, and thats really sad.
@Serdikhan Right... and thats why we all like cartoons. Because they're so dang UNrealistic looking :/ Take, oh I don't know, The Little Mermaid for instance. The way Ariel moves is bouncy and fun to watch and so much more satisfying than watching characters who have been dragged around into different positions by the so called "animators" :/
@eliteprotobot Need I remind you most of Disney's characters had live-action models. So basically their CGI characters made to look like 2D characters.
@Serdikhan Why make them made to look like 2D characters if the 2D didn't have something to it to begin with? Anyway they all look like bulgy eyed gross freaks to me.
@Serdikhan *COUGH* YEAH, that's the whole point she was making in the video, like how ORIGINAL Phineas and Ferb is for example. In all CGI movies they all look the same, unoriginal and ugly, and even if there are slight "differences" it's because of the character, not the style.
@eliteprotobot I don't see any similarities between a CGI Angelina Jolie and DIsney's Rapunzel. And what the hell is ugly about CGI? I don't see 2D doing better. 2D animation will be back ONLY if aniamted movies begin to make money like they once did, but that's highly unlikely nowadays
@Serdikhan 2d movies SHOULD make more money whether they do or not. People "nowadays" can make mistakes like all voting for a horrible president and regretting it. Someday I hope all these cgi fans are happy when all animation is screwed up and ugly forever then maybe theyll understand what we're trying to say here.
@TheSlaveShow CGI is still evolving, If you look at the three Toy Story movie you'll see how. CGI is showing no signs of slowing down and it'll never will. With Pixar's princess Merida joining the Disney Princess line-up, the line-up will be even more balanced.
@Serdikhan It shouldve stopped evolving years ago (like at the point where it was still 2d). Otherwise theres no point in animation what so ever. Do you really want it to look exactly like real life someday? Is that what youre saying? Like my friend says we admit its impressive that they can make it life like but its very unnecessary. Its a waste of time when they could just be using live action. Animators shouldn't be slaves to reality.
@TheSlaveShow The first sentence doesn't make sense. Animation is anything that's not live-action. Clay, stop-motion, hand-drawn, computer animation. If you've seen Avatar, you'd know an all realistic-looking animated movie is 100% possible. The reason why nobody does it, it's because it looks live-action rather than animated, thus it's not called an animated movie. CGI animated movies look cartoony and very not live-action like and that's how it's gonna be. Rapunzel has tennis ball-sized eyes.
@Serdikhan Right and tennis ball sized eyes look horrible on rapunzel because shes not truly a cartoon. Its insulting to see animation mutilated like that.
@TheSlaveShow obviously in avatar they have to animate the blue guys. Now if they animated the whole thing that would be sad. In something like tangled though theres no point in animating anything if they want it to look real. They shouldnt be like Its supposed to look real except the humans/characters. It defeats the purpose of cartoons and makes animators slaves to reality like i said before. Theres no way they should have to make textures and crud like that in a 100% animated movie.
@TheSlaveShow Why even make the humans look cartoonish if theyre in a realistic looking world? If disney animators think the only way they can get money is by playing up the realism factor than the whole point of animation is defeated. Its no longer about the best they can do for the movie its all about how they can make the most m.o.n.e.y.
@Serdikhan how do you explain what ugly is? and why is everyone saying 2D doesnt make enough money just because of PATF? That was a failure because no one wants to watch an in your face "don't be racist" point when nobody even is anymore :/
@Serdikhan it gets the point across well enough i think. It doesnt matter what pics i found on the internet you should just use your brain to fill in the obvious o.o
Traditional animation works for certain animated movie not, all of them. And a 2D animated movie can't make the top 10 highest-grossing movies of the year list.
Nah, I find only 2D drawings of Rapunzel great, I'm already convinced the movie would not have looked good in 2D. Nothing in the movie was designed for a 2D aniamted feature.
@Serdikhan The less I say about the unbeliavable amout of detail that went in the character's clothing, that made it a favourite of many people, the better.
@TheSlaveShow The decorations the fabric texture, weathering, tarnish on metals, seams. It all looked unbeliavably realistic for a non-realistic CGI animated movie. I can imagine how totally unimpressive the character's clothes would have been if they were in 2D.
The more detailed something is, the harder it is to animate. Judging how the film went into developement I'm glad they made it CGI, otherwise it wouldn't have existed.
@Serdikhan but thats exactly my point. Your talking about details that make it look realer not cooler. My idea of detail would be like speckled flowers all over rapunzels dress or something, not texture (we can do without texture because thats only for things you want to look real). It makes no sense to me why an animation should focus on looking realistic instead of focusing on looking cooler.
@TheSlaveShow0:47 that drawing of Rapunzel is kinda lame by The Princess and the Frog standards. Where's the shading for example. 2D animation has been upgraded by having blended shading. That looks more like a drawing for a children's book rather than a drawing for a 2D animated movie. If you're gonna show people the awesomeness of 2D, then show them 2D at it's best and right now screenshots of The Princess and the Frog are the best option.
@Serdikhan okay whatever that was the only picture they had of rapunzel. not my fault. i searched for ages just to find that one. Dont change the subject.
Audiences have lost interest in 2D animation, which is why hand-drawn animated movies are almost non existant these days. And you can't make a business with something audiences have no longer interest in. When Tiana kissed the box office, it did not turn into a prince, and Disney's first CGI fairytale "Tangled" was highly successful, beating Aladdin for the honor of being the 2nd-highest grossing movie in the Disney Animated Canon behind "The Lion King".
Serdikhan 8 months ago
@Serdikhan You know w.h.a.t.e.v.e.r. Nothing you can say is gonna stop me from creating my own 2d movie/s someday :d And maybe I shall go bankrupt, but who cares? All I want is for there to be good movies out there, if there really were people would notice them eventually. It's not about what makes the most money, it's about making something you actually care about. People like you opening your traps are going to make 2d extinct before I even get a chance though, and you need to shut up.
TheSlaveShow 8 months ago
@TheSlaveShow Oh, so you're saying all 3D movies are garbage all because they're computer animated and nothing else. How shallow are you? Who cares you say, I think you do and you would cuz everybody hates going bankrupt. Notice what? Everyone knows about 2D animation, and they know it's an outdated thing these days. Computer animation makes hand-drawn animation look like it's just for children instead of mainstream audiences, which is why they prefer 3D. Times have changed and won't change back
Serdikhan 8 months ago
@Serdikhan I'm not aiming for mainstream, I'm doing what I personally enjoy, which is what all successful people do. I feel sorry for you if you actually like crap like Rio and Monsters vs Aliens and the other equivalent junk they come out with now. You think I'm 'shallow' when in truth I'm just too deep to be satisfied by the utter garbage everyone else is apparently into, because they lack the imagination to come up with anything better. I'll always associate CGI with crappy heartless movies.
TheSlaveShow 8 months ago
@TheSlaveShow WHERE THE HELL DID I SAY I LIKE THOSE MOVIES? WHERE AT ALL DID I SAY WHAT MOVIES I LIKE? And you're not deep, you're shallow and racist. WE HAVE A CRAP LOAD OF SHITTY HAND-DRAWN MOVIES TOO IN CASE YOU'RE TOO SHALLOW TO NOTECE. AND DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME YOU EVEN REMOTELY ENJOY ANY OF THEM IN THE LEAST.
And a hand-drawn Rapunzel movie is one of world's worst ideas, proven by Disney's Tangled. Your video's a load of crap, it has unconvinng drawings and no animation what-so-ever.
Serdikhan 8 months ago
@Serdikhan Yep, there are a million idiotic hand drawn movies too, but at least the art is imaginative. As for the rest of your comment blah blah blah circles circles circles. You may as well re-read the whole argument since you aren't bringing up any new points I haven't already countered a billion times.
TheSlaveShow 8 months ago
@TheSlaveShow Hand-drawn animated movie have limited imagination, cuz they're hand-drawn, the moving things can't allow itself details, decorations, elaborations or anything complex. Unlike handrawn, CGI is limitless and can allow the user to do everything, plus it saves paper. Bonus. For a video about animation, I haven't a single piece of animation, nothing is moving, oh god, animate something. 0:46 This picture's pathetic. So basic, so undecorated, so unelaborate, so uncomplex. So sad.
Serdikhan 8 months ago
@Serdikhan You mean details like boring realistic textures? Who cares? It shouldnt have to be realistic because that IS limiting.And I have yet to see them do something truly creative with CGI, because it sure all looks the same to me. AND FOR THE LAST TIME I AM EVER GOING TO SAY THIS that was the only danged picture I could find of rapunzle for this video for crying out loud what your being is called close minded. I assumed the idiots watching this would get my POINT not be irrelevant.
TheSlaveShow 8 months ago
@TheSlaveShow Realistic textures are not boring, because of the fact it's not live-action, thus we enjoy the amount of effort that was put into those things. And really, no shading, how pathetic is it for a 21 century hand-drawn animated movie to not have shading. Hand-drawn is always more limited than CGI. Hand-drawn will never ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever measure up to what you can do with computers. There's only so much complexity and elaboration that 2D allows.
Serdikhan 8 months ago
@Serdikhan I thought tangled was a kids movie, and since when do kids give half a dead minnow about how much detail was put into the art? Its not fun looking that way. So youre saying it appeals to the adults who are the ones with the money, correct? My point is proven.
TheSlaveShow 8 months ago
@TheSlaveShow Do you even make sense, or do you just randomly put words together in your favor. Tangled is a mainstream movie like Beauty and the Beast, if it was just a kids movie, it would have been something like the Care Bears or something. And everyone appreciates good-looking movies, visuals are a big part of the experience from a movie and are always important. All you do is mumble. If you have proven anything is that 2D looks fucking boring compared to what 3D has to offer.
Serdikhan 8 months ago
@Serdikhan You obviously know nothing of kids if you think any of them actualy enjoy care bears.Thats whats wrong with people like you -_- You assume its what makes the most money that people like the best.Well people regret spending their money you know (mostly adults at that). It shouldnt be about money at all.I actually happen to know a lot of people who dislike CGI.Have you even talked to anyone besides your close minded self?Just because it makes more money doesnt mean people wont regret it
TheSlaveShow 8 months ago
@TheSlaveShow Whatever people dislike CGI, it must a pretty puny number of them in comparison to the number of people who enjoy it.
Serdikhan 8 months ago
@Serdikhan Oh really? I dont remember my opinion getting asked when they did their research. In fact I dont think they ASK anyone anything. They just assume whatvever makes the most money is the best, because its better for them of course.
TheSlaveShow 8 months ago
@TheSlaveShow Time changes, and things change along with it. Obviously since CGI animated movies make more money, it's clear people are more interested in computer animation, than they are hand-drawn animation. Whatever plans people had for a hand-drawn animation feature, they should have done it back in the 90s, back when computer animation was new and hadn't overshadowed 2D. No 2D animated movie has joined the top 10 animated movies list since 1994's Lion King. And Disney's Aladdin is at #20.
Serdikhan 8 months ago
@Serdikhan That'll change when I make a GOOD 2d animated movie.
TheSlaveShow 8 months ago
@TheSlaveShow Yeah, right. No 2D animated movie in the world can change people's preference. 2D is as good as gone.
Serdikhan 8 months ago
@Serdikhan Might start a trend, might not. At least there will be one good movie in the world rather than not.
TheSlaveShow 8 months ago
@TheSlaveShow WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT SUPPOSE TO MEAN? WHAT ONE GOOD MOVIE IN THE WORLD? THE WORLD HAS THOUSANDS OF GOOD MOVIES.
Serdikhan 8 months ago
@Serdikhan Oh really? -_-
TheSlaveShow 8 months ago
@TheSlaveShow Great, you haven't answered my first question, and now you're making me to repeated with with what you've wrote. When you're asked a question, answered it!
Serdikhan 8 months ago
@Serdikhan So your question is what do I mean by there are no good movies in the world? Well, there are some...but not very many at all. Most of them are just made for money.
TheSlaveShow 8 months ago
@TheSlaveShow How the hell does the simple reason that a movie is made for money (which every movie in existance is made for, with no exceptions what-so-ever) means that the movie is bad? What a completely ridiculous thought. It actually even goes beyond ridiculous. And you still you haven't answered the question.
Serdikhan 8 months ago
@Serdikhan Theyre ALL made for money? That's terrible o_o No wonder so many of them stink!! You just proved my point. I mean do you really think the people who make these movies actually care what happens to their characters? About how the story ends? About anything other than the money? No they don't. An example of a good story would be something like Harry Potter (something the author actually cares about themself and therefore other people like it). An example of a bad story is something like
TheSlaveShow 8 months ago
@Serdikhan (continued) the incredibles because it's so shallow. CGI is just a part of the era of heartless movies, where they can't even put their heart into the art anymore.
TheSlaveShow 8 months ago
@TheSlaveShow Making up pathetic excuses has never helped anyone and it's certainly not helping you or whatever you're saying. I'd sure love to see if you can sink any lower. What the fuck is this heart shit you speak of. People don't care what style the movie is done in, they only care about the movie itself. What, you're saying even one of the shittiest 2D animated movies has more heart than one of the best CGI animated movies of all time. You need a professional therapist. YOU'RE SICK!
Serdikhan 8 months ago
@Serdikhan Ok now I 'answered your question' and it's 'an excuse'? Go back and re-read what I said if thats what you think. I said movies should have heart put into them. From what Ive seen most 2d animated movies have more heart put into them than most CGI movies (at least in the art) . And if YOU really dont care what style a movie is done in then why are you arguing...? And yeahhh I really wouldnt expect you to know what heart is...*cough* money lover *cough*
TheSlaveShow 8 months ago
@TheSlaveShow Nothing. You've seen nothing. And you never will. What the fuck do you know about art? You're using a super pathetic and lousy computer drawing with no artistic value of Rapunzel do demostrate 2D. Since no one in the whole wide world has any evidence what-so-ever that Tangled would have been better in 2D, I'm not surprised I'm looking at pathetic puctures that won't even make it into a children's coloring book. AND WHY TANGLED? You couldn't think of a better way to make this video?
Serdikhan 8 months ago
@Serdikhan I already countered those 'points' of yours a million times. Maybe you just need to shut up now. Youre obviously just some big mouthed no lifer who can argue with people on youtube for years. Go argue about the lyrics in goof troop like it matters or like any of your points matter at all...Youre a complete waste of time and I dont wanna humor you anymore. -_-
TheSlaveShow 8 months ago
@TheSlaveShow I never felt humored by you. In fact, I don't think you even tried to humor me. This is just one of your pathetic excuses to cover your mistake- and nonsense-filled video that hasn't inspired anyone to do as it says. What an effortless and lousy piece of work you put in a video was suppose to inspire people without insulting their intelligence or their interest in CGI animation.
Serdikhan 8 months ago
@Serdikhan This isnt an excuse for you to start another argument about whether or not i was humoring you. What the heck is your point arguing about everything possible on the internet?? Get a life!!!! You honestly dont think thats a little bit sad? I guess the little girl has to be the mature one here. *blocks*
TheSlaveShow 8 months ago
if you say tangled sucked then dance on walt disney's grave
charlietherealcat 8 months ago
@charlietherealcat 1. That's what I'm trying to do... 2. Yeah, Tangled should have been done with traditional animation. 3. huh? o.0
TheSlaveShow 8 months ago
@TheSlaveShow walt disney is a real man who made the idea for tangled
charlietherealcat 8 months ago
tangeled was originaly going to be animated but walt passed away and never got finished
charlietherealcat 8 months ago
tell it to disney and pixar if your so "wanting to fight" for "good" animation
charlietherealcat 8 months ago
The world is moving forward with CGI and other visual technologies. Move forward dude. Tangled is a very good (and mathematically complex) movie besides. People like you nowadays are becoming extinct. CGI is a good medium. And there's nothing you can do to erase it in this world. It's like moving time backwards. IMPOSSIBLE.
olivergalleguez 9 months ago
@olivergalleguez Impossible? I don't think so. Go ahead and say that though. It encourages me.
TheSlaveShow 9 months ago
@TheSlaveShow Yeah. Suit yourself. It's okay to dream.
olivergalleguez 9 months ago
@olivergalleguez Yes it is. People are just too scared to.
TheSlaveShow 9 months ago
@TheSlaveShow You're just pure nonsense. You just can't accept that CG Animation is taking the world, and 2D had become a second "optional" option for the moviegoers nowadays. I have nothing against 2D, it's a very good medium for 30-minute-to-an-hour TV toons. All you have to do is to accept. Yeah. The word is accept. You'll die attempting to kill CGI, and you will surely die lost in this war. But again, it's okay to dream though.
olivergalleguez 9 months ago
@olivergalleguez Nah, I'll get my movie. :) If everyone else wants to use CGI fine...it'll just make mine even more unique I guess.
TheSlaveShow 8 months ago
@TheSlaveShow Yeah. Yours will be unique because your graphics will be crappy. More crappy than the traditional 2D movies Disney and other studios ever produced. And if you ever finished your "movie" then send that video to me. No, no, no. That would be a waste of time for me.
olivergalleguez 8 months ago
@olivergalleguez It won't be crappy. Lol XD Why would it be? Because you think I'd need a lot of money? I intend to get my way using pure talent. Yes sir, as soon as someone discovers my brilliance I will surely send the trailer of my movie to you.
TheSlaveShow 8 months ago
@Serdikhan Thats rich considering you always come and harass ME when your bored. If you dont think tangled is worth arguing about then why are you?
TheSlaveShow 9 months ago
@TheSlaveShow This video is more about Tangled than anything. And you yourself haven't stopped talking about it to the point of you saying it was Disney's loss, even though they haven't lost anything whatsoever from this movie. You don't want 2D animation back. According to this video, all you want is Tangled to have been 2D animated. That's it, that's all there is to this video. Just a whiny girl who has no respect for Tangled's work and prefers to overlook stuff before coming to conclusions.
Serdikhan 9 months ago
@Serdikhan I used tangled as an example, because that's what we were originally talking about.Yes, the reason I'm saying tangled is bad in cgi is the same reason I'm saying all cgi is bad. Disney and any other companies that replace 2d with cgi have lost a lot. They lost sight of what animation really IS. Youve blinded yourself because your a disney worshipping no lifer who assumes they can do no wrong and has nothing better to do than harass kids on youtube. O.o
TheSlaveShow 9 months ago
@TheSlaveShow Since no one talks about it anymore (for obvious reasons), it means this video is outdated. You're completely wasting everyone's time talking about Tangled. And what the fuck has the other studios lost? Lots of financial failures and high chances of backruptcy, who wouldn't want to lose that. Tangled is much better as a CGI movie, since it has the formula, characters movements, dialog and humor for a CGI movie and doesn't have anything for a 2D movie.
Serdikhan 9 months ago
@Serdikhan Well, your always welcome to stop commenting for one. Oh please. Really, dont even get me started on the "characters humor and dialog"....And maybe the only reason these companies are "going bankrupt" is because they cant shell out decent stories anymore, ever think of that? You think animation is getting crappier...the stories are utter garbage.
TheSlaveShow 9 months ago
@TheSlaveShow Decent stories? No, I don't. The Princes And The Frog couldn't even reach a pathetic $300 Million worldwide, despite having a georgeous poster that only contained classic 90s stuff and nothing modern, and despite the fact that the movie has the same formula as the other Disney Princess movies, The latest of which were big successes back in their day, which of course was before the 21st century. So no, I don't blame the stories. CGI animation dominates the markets, 2D feels outdated
Serdikhan 9 months ago
@Serdikhan Thats because that "formula" is over used and everyone knew that and didnt waste their time seeing it. Open your eyes -_- Movies today are pathetic. All they are are retellings, dumbed down versions of books, shameful remakes of old cartoons and other various unoriginal crap.
TheSlaveShow 9 months ago
@TheSlaveShow What does any these have anything with animation?
Serdikhan 9 months ago
@Serdikhan Re-read the comments if you forgot how we got on that topic. What do you think I am your slave?
TheSlaveShow 9 months ago
@TheSlaveShow So you're saying it's story that prevents 2D animated feautures from being success at the box office. You just encouraged people to give up on 2D even more. Guess that explains why so many 2D animated feauture projects were cancelled. And since people have no idea what the fuck stories people want from a 2D animated feature nowadays, and they don't wanna risk with gambling, it's no surprise 2D is still not brought back. If 2D doesn't prove to be moneymaking again, it won't be back.
Serdikhan 9 months ago
@Serdikhan If someone did a decent 2d animated story it would be fine. Besides, not all CGI movie stories are so hot either. Im going to have my own movie someday and you can just see. You can just see. -_-
TheSlaveShow 9 months ago
P.S. Hand-drawn animation is pretty much out of style and nothing will ever make people act like computer animation and internet don't exist, you know, they way things were before the late 90s. Do you know those silly, stupid animated movies like the Care Bears. In the 80s you can get away with such movies in theatres. Today you can't. Get with the fucking time. Perhaps you know, you can make CGI cartoons that look like they're 2D, like Danny Phantom, or hand-drawn like Phineas and Ferb.
Serdikhan 9 months ago
P.S. Tangled is by far the worst example of a movie to be talking about 2D stuff. Tangled doesn't encourage 2D in any way. And 2D has it's flaws too you know. Tangled is by far the most artistic use of CGI I've ever seen, the colorfulness, the complexity, the details, the lovely oli-painting look, the beautiful, enchanting imagery. You don't see that in other animated movies, 2D or CGI. Tangled's CGI is one of a kind and FYI people are glad it wasn't 2D. 2D simply cannot compete with Tangled.
Serdikhan 9 months ago
Wow, that's amazing. How did you managed to get EVERYTHING wrong in this video. The movie you use as an example is wrong, the pictures you use as an example are wrong. It's all wrong. How do you expect people to get your point if you don't show it properly. Children's book pictures and a movie that looks better as a computer animated movie rather than a hand-drawn animated movie, is not the way to do this video.
Serdikhan 9 months ago
@Serdikhan You already said that and I already explained why. Stop making me have to keep rewording the same thing over and over you close minded clawker or im going to start copying and pasting the exact same answer every time you comment snot brain.
TheSlaveShow 9 months ago
@TheSlaveShow You did? Really? Well, whatever it was I'm sure it didn't made sense, because in a video that gets everything wrong, nothing makes sense.
Serdikhan 9 months ago
@Serdikhan Suffering from short term memory loss again as usual, eh serdikhan? Go study some logic before you start trying to argue next time too.
TheSlaveShow 9 months ago
@TheSlaveShow It was probably some shit like because all the other fairytale movies were hand-drawn even though neither of them had to battle with hair physics, hair lusciousness and complex, detailed clothing, like Tangled. No no has evidence that Tangled should have been hand-drawn and thay never will.
Serdikhan 9 months ago
@Serdikhan That's right, close minded people never will have any evidence. Neither will you have any evidence of why it had to be CGI. Oh wait let me guess....money? -_-
TheSlaveShow 9 months ago
@TheSlaveShow If it was money, than The Princess and the Frog would have CGi too, but it wasn't. And you must be one of those close minded people you speak of since even you don't have evidence that Tangled should have been hand-drawn.
Serdikhan 9 months ago
@Serdikhan Evidence: 1. 2d simply looks better. 2. 2d takes more talent and is therefore better. 3. CGI is ugly. 4. Tangled did NOT have things that "needed" to be in CGI 0_o 5. just the fact that CGI is cheaper should show you something. CGI animation is just mutilated cartoons. And everyone knows they only made TPATF because they knew a black princess would rake in the money anyway. You think disney cares what the audience enjoys anymore? LOL good one XD They just want the cash.
TheSlaveShow 9 months ago
@TheSlaveShow Wow you're stupid, I asked for evidence for Tangled only, not your lousy stereotypical opinion about 2D and CGI in general. 1. 2. 3. & 5. have no useful information what-so-ever, 4. - the reason why Tangled was CGI was because the movie required things that aren't able to be pulled of in 2-D, like rotation the camera scenes, Rapunzel's luscious and shiny hair, which is why people are glad it was CGI, and of course the clothing which is so impressive, it has it's own analysis page.
Serdikhan 9 months ago
@Serdikhan Then why didnt they just use live action? Tangled was no reason to mutilate cartoon animation. and "FYI" even a lot disney animators wanted 2d. Wow so if it was 2d they wouldnt have been able to show a few boring shots of grass? And hair could still be awesome in 2d if they used their imaginations. As for "the oil painting look" or whatever...huh??? There was no such creative thing in that movie. That was the old idea they decided wouldnt make enough money remember??
TheSlaveShow 9 months ago
@TheSlaveShow Cuz then it won't be called an animated movie, duh. How many idiot questions are you gonna ask? And what idiot doesn't know the difference between how live-action looks and how computer animation looks. No one stupid enough to confuse the two or get away with passing one as the other.
I believe the world all agrees that Tangled is better the way it is, instead of 2D.
There's no way in hell you can make a video that encourages 2D. Compared to CGI, 2D looks like it's for kids only
Serdikhan 9 months ago
@Serdikhan EXACTLY IT WOULDNT BE AN ANIMATED MOVIE IDIOT. Thats my point. There are cartoons (2d) and live action (real people). Anything else is a mutilated insult unless it's a video game. Disney was meant to be hand drawn not made by machines instead of talented people. Dont go on a lecture about how "they are talented". 2d animators are MORE talented. they just use the others cuz theyre cheaper. They were too scared to make tangled 2d and it was their loss.
TheSlaveShow 9 months ago
@TheSlaveShow If it's not live-action, than it's animated, DUH IDIOT. Don't you know that anything that's not live-action is animation. Stop-mothing, hand-drawn, computer animated.
WHERE ARE YOUR FUCKING EVIDENCE THAT TANGLED WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE EYE-PLEASING IN 2D. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE, CUZ THEY NEVER DID ANY 2D SAMPLES FOR CAMPARISON.
AND HOW IS THEIR LOSS? Tangled is critically acclaimed and it's Disney's highest-grossing movie in their Animated Canon since The Lion King.
Serdikhan 9 months ago
No I won't join your battle because it's silly.
2D hand draw animation has a special place in my heart but I like 3D animation just the same. To me animation is animation no matter what format it's in. I have no problem with the way Tangled looks either. I don't really care how real or cartoony characters look just as long it does it's job of telling the story or bring the point across.
XeroBlue 10 months ago
@XeroBlue I agree its good when they actually get a decent story across but i think EVERYTHING matters INCLUDING animation and you can't deny that 2d animation is simply better.
TheSlaveShow 10 months ago
@TheSlaveShow
2D animation is better? lol Prove it.
That's like saying live action is better and animation.
No REAL animator with any grain of sense is going to tell that 3D is better than 3D or vice versa.
Just like live-action, both 2D and 3D animation have their pros and cons over each other and their they own aesthetic appeal but none are overall better than the other.
XeroBlue 10 months ago
@XeroBlue
The simple fact that you called CG animators untalented and suggested CG animation as something other that REAL animation leads me to believe that you are speaking from a place of ignorance and have no idea of what real animation is.
XeroBlue 10 months ago
@XeroBlue So what are you saying? CGI animation is better than 2D? Is it? No. That's my whole point. Why are they doing it then? Because it's cheaper. Money's what it's all about. If they wanted to do what was fully best they'd stick to 2D.
TheSlaveShow 10 months ago
i prefer the 2d picture of that girl and i agree that realistic isnt creative but i think it would be good if they used unique pictures like spongebob etc but made him 3d but dont change any of the drawing just make it 3d
WickedWendyClubPengy 1 year ago
@WickedWendyClubPengy Hmm..
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
I'm actually fine with how Tangled looked in 3D. Still, it certainly would be nice to see some 2D movies as well. But don't hate on 3D just because they're not making 2D anymore. Studios nowadays are just paying too much attention to their new toys that they come out with a lacking story. So remember. 3D, 2D, live action, i don't care. Just give me some good stories PLEASE the disney movies back in the 90s were the besttttt. I wish you the best of luck in reviving 2D animation. I'll welcome it.
KageKevSama 1 year ago
@KageKevSama I care about the art a lot actually, because I want to be an animator, but I could also go on and on about the over used plots too :/ I agree with you totally that the old disneys were the best!
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
No wonder no american company have bother making a 2D feature of Rapunzel. It's impossible.
Serdikhan 1 year ago
@Serdikhan Its kind of fun to do the impossible.-Walt Disney
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
@TheSlaveShow A 2D animated theatrical release based on Rapunzel. Those don't exist and there's a reason why.
Serdikhan 1 year ago
@Serdikhan Yes, because modern animators are lazy money loving self concerned scrooges. I agree thats a reason.
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
@TheSlaveShow It's IMPOSSIBLE. No man with a brain cell will even think of making a 2D Rapunzel movie, unless you know, it's made by a cheap studio, like all the studios who made their own 40 minute Rapunzel cartoon. Yes, cartoon, not a movie, cartoon. Disney's Rapunzel was in Development Hell and threfore it cost $260 Million to get it finished. Good thing it was CGI cuz otherwise the company might go bankrupt and no longer make animated movies.
Serdikhan 1 year ago
@Serdikhan What youre saying doesnt even make sense. It is darn well possible to still make 2d animated movies. Yes rapunzel shouldve been one of them. If they thought they couldnt do a good enough job on it then maybe they shouldnt be making movies at all.
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
@TheSlaveShow YOU CAN IMAGINE HOW CRAPPY THE MOVIE WOULD HAVE LOOKED IF IT WAS 2D, WHICH IS WHY IT WAS NEVER PLANNED TO BE A 2D ANIMATED MOVIE. There's barely a single 2D-animated feature
THERE'S NO LAW ABOUT WHAT MOVIES YOU'RE MAKING JUST AS LONG AS YOU'RE MAKING MOVIES. "2D animation" almost became a dead genre in the early 2000s because of the failures of some 2D animated films back then. Because of this everyone is keeping 2D animation to a minumum in order to avoid disaster.
Serdikhan 1 year ago
@Serdikhan Whatever. All i know is someday Im gonna be rich with my 2d animated movies that everyone else was afraid to make and you can sit in the audience and cry.
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
@TheSlaveShow You're obviously going to use a small budget and you're movies will look decades behind.
Serdikhan 1 year ago
@Serdikhan Nope.
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
@TheSlaveShow Oh, yes you are, cuz you have no choice, otherwise you'll go bankrupt.
This video is stupid. It' doesn't tell us about 2D or CGI animation and it's doesn't explain what's so bizzare about CGI animation.
Serdikhan 1 year ago
@Serdikhan No i wont becuase i have a plan that i dont have to explain....yet. You want to know whats wrong with CGI? Okay here it is: It stifles creativity. There you go. Why would you want a cheap copy of cartoons when you can have the real deal?
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
@Serdikhan Besides shouldnt the audience be more interested in the PLOT of the movie or did disney think they couldnt make rapunzel interesting enough so they had to make a big deal about how real her hair looks to make it sound all cool in the previews?
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
There are so many things wrong with this video, I don't know where to start. Lets start that this video seems to be almost all about Tangled being in 2D and almost nothing to do with bringing 2D animation back. Second, using what looks like children's book pictures to represent 2D and CGI animation is very wrong. And third, people have to have an IQ of below 0 if they can't tell the difference between live-action and computer animation. Hello, it's computer animation, not SFX
Serdikhan 1 year ago
@Serdikhan I never saw avatar and i dont care to. I was using tangled as an example to represent all cgi movies. I used pictures that "looked like they were from childrens books" because its all they had and i hoped people wouldnt be so idiotic that they wouldnt understand what i was trying to say with them. happy?
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
@Serdikhan and i love how you dont even DENY its just for money. Since people can tell the difference between animated movies and live action then WHATS THE POINT OF TRYING MAKING IT LOOK REAL? Tell me. Whats the point? I wanna know. You never told me. Money? I rest my case.
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
@TheSlaveShow COMPUTER ANIMATION IS THE UNREALISTIC KIND OF REALISM AND WE LOVE IT, MORE THAN WE DO DRAWINGS OR LIVE-ACTION.
Serdikhan 1 year ago
@Serdikhan CGI is MUTILATING CARTOONS AND NORMAL CARTOONS ARE BETTER THAN THIS INBETWEEN CRUD. Only people who no nothing about art "love" it and even disney animators agree 2d was better. So why do they make cgi? for money of course. The selfish gits.
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
the only thing i like cgi stuff in is video games like the beatles rock band but i like the fact tht in the beatles cartoon from the 60s they drew it looking cartoonish and it was still epic
CatseaTheCat 1 year ago
@CatseaTheCat yeah i like cgi in video games too but i think it should be kept out of movies
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
The reason why the Rapunzel movie should have been CGI are far greater than the reasons why 2D. You can tell by the many necessary spin shots of the enviroment.
Serdikhan 1 year ago
@Serdikhan necessary? i dont think so...
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
I think your work is super awesome, but this video would really upset the people that made Tangled.
dorthelthree 1 year ago
@dorthelthree well thanks for saying my work is awesome :)
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
I dont like drawing realistic for me that looks boring cartoony looks fun and creative :) x
King365bunny 1 year ago
@King365bunny :)!
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
Disney is fudgin stupid, ruining Club penguin, Rapunzel and hippys aren't allowed to work at Disney Land! I am serious, yuor not allowed to work at Disney Land/World and have facial hair
samsbabejr 1 year ago
@samsbabejr i cant stand disney :p
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
This looks an awfully like a video for how to draw children's books instead of how to draw a 2D animated movie. Both the 2D and CGI Rapunzel in this video look like children book pictures as oppose to 2D and CGI animation.
Serdikhan 1 year ago
@Serdikhan its not my fault they only had stupid pictures of rapunzel ok? get over that and like i said before use your brain so that maybe you can actually understand what im trying to say huh?!
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
CGI Rapunzel will always be prettier than any 2D drawings people make of her
Serdikhan 1 year ago
This needs to be said:
If you're actually 14 like your profile says and the picture in the video is an example of your recent drawings, you have no business criticizing the AMAZING artwork in Tangled. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on which style they prefer, but calling cgi an "insult" to your dream career as a cartoonist?! Ridiculous. Put more effort into your own work before you insult professionals who actually know what they're doing.
MlleMonarch 1 year ago
@MlleMonarch Now THAT'S something I can totally see coming from a stuck up Disney snot :) *humors*
eliteprotobot 1 year ago
@MlleMonarch actually im 15 and that pic in the video is really old o_e. you have no buisness criticizing MY work when you dont even know it k snot? Anywhoo theres something about unoriginal cgi animation that i dont find "amazing" and maybe if you were open minded you could see it too. whether im a good animator yet or not is beside the point completely. i bet you cant sing but you dont wanna listen to music by someone else who cant :)
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
@TheSlaveShow Well... thought the realism is impressive I do think that the more creative ideas thought of by everyday people are a lot more interesting because theyre UNIQUE. i wouldnt want everything looking the same either, so i support you :)
eerikaanne1298 1 year ago
@eerikaanne1298 Thanks anne. Me and woof are going to bring the age of cartoons back lol
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
THANK YOU! finally someone who understands our pain! (:
realtvfan18 1 year ago
@realtvfan18 :D
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
Whats CGI?
TheLOVEKISSME 1 year ago
@TheLOVEKISSME that 3d-ish looking stuff like pixar
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
@TheSlaveShow Disney and Pixar each have their own CGI studio. You can see slight difference between Disney CGI characters and Pixar characters.
Serdikhan 1 year ago
isn"t there a diffrent bettween regular cartoon anmation and 3D anmation (srry if u cant read my spelling)
Penguinfan35 1 year ago
@Penguinfan35 yeah that 3d type stuff is called cgi.
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
We're lucky Disney is willing to turn over a 2D aniamted feature every two years, lets not push it.
Serdikhan 1 year ago
@Serdikhan But i want to push it. Thats what this video is about. its a fight now :)
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
@TheSlaveShow Judging by what 2D has to compete with, fights for 2D to continue won't show any results. Disney will be the only American animation studio making 2D feaures and those 2D features will be relesed every two years and that's that.
Serdikhan 1 year ago
@Serdikhan No because im going to bring 2d back. Im just a kid now but im going to bring it back when i can and im gonna keep protesting cgi right now.
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
@TheSlaveShow With Pixar and DreamWorks making CGI movies, it's unlikely CGI will slow down.
Serdikhan 1 year ago
@Serdikhan thats why we need to fight. get it?
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
@Serdikhan its just like it shows in the video. trying to make a cartoon look as realistic as possible is wrong. it shouldnt even be considered a "cartoon". I find it sad that they've found ways to add realistic looking textures and stuff. it defeats the whole purpose of cartoons because it looks real! so you might as well be saying you dont think disney should make cartoons anymore, and thats really sad.
eliteprotobot 1 year ago
@eliteprotobot 2D animation is never realistic. Only CGI is. And they're called cartoons because they're not live-action.
Serdikhan 1 year ago
@Serdikhan Right... and thats why we all like cartoons. Because they're so dang UNrealistic looking :/ Take, oh I don't know, The Little Mermaid for instance. The way Ariel moves is bouncy and fun to watch and so much more satisfying than watching characters who have been dragged around into different positions by the so called "animators" :/
eliteprotobot 1 year ago
Comment removed
Serdikhan 1 year ago
@eliteprotobot Need I remind you most of Disney's characters had live-action models. So basically their CGI characters made to look like 2D characters.
Serdikhan 1 year ago
@Serdikhan Why make them made to look like 2D characters if the 2D didn't have something to it to begin with? Anyway they all look like bulgy eyed gross freaks to me.
eliteprotobot 1 year ago
@eliteprotobot Most animated and cartoon characters have unrelistic body proportions. Get used to it.
Serdikhan 1 year ago
@Serdikhan *COUGH* YEAH, that's the whole point she was making in the video, like how ORIGINAL Phineas and Ferb is for example. In all CGI movies they all look the same, unoriginal and ugly, and even if there are slight "differences" it's because of the character, not the style.
eliteprotobot 1 year ago
@eliteprotobot I don't see any similarities between a CGI Angelina Jolie and DIsney's Rapunzel. And what the hell is ugly about CGI? I don't see 2D doing better. 2D animation will be back ONLY if aniamted movies begin to make money like they once did, but that's highly unlikely nowadays
Serdikhan 1 year ago
@Serdikhan 2d movies SHOULD make more money whether they do or not. People "nowadays" can make mistakes like all voting for a horrible president and regretting it. Someday I hope all these cgi fans are happy when all animation is screwed up and ugly forever then maybe theyll understand what we're trying to say here.
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
@TheSlaveShow CGI is still evolving, If you look at the three Toy Story movie you'll see how. CGI is showing no signs of slowing down and it'll never will. With Pixar's princess Merida joining the Disney Princess line-up, the line-up will be even more balanced.
Serdikhan 1 year ago
@Serdikhan It shouldve stopped evolving years ago (like at the point where it was still 2d). Otherwise theres no point in animation what so ever. Do you really want it to look exactly like real life someday? Is that what youre saying? Like my friend says we admit its impressive that they can make it life like but its very unnecessary. Its a waste of time when they could just be using live action. Animators shouldn't be slaves to reality.
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
@TheSlaveShow The first sentence doesn't make sense. Animation is anything that's not live-action. Clay, stop-motion, hand-drawn, computer animation. If you've seen Avatar, you'd know an all realistic-looking animated movie is 100% possible. The reason why nobody does it, it's because it looks live-action rather than animated, thus it's not called an animated movie. CGI animated movies look cartoony and very not live-action like and that's how it's gonna be. Rapunzel has tennis ball-sized eyes.
Serdikhan 1 year ago
@Serdikhan Right and tennis ball sized eyes look horrible on rapunzel because shes not truly a cartoon. Its insulting to see animation mutilated like that.
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
@TheSlaveShow obviously in avatar they have to animate the blue guys. Now if they animated the whole thing that would be sad. In something like tangled though theres no point in animating anything if they want it to look real. They shouldnt be like Its supposed to look real except the humans/characters. It defeats the purpose of cartoons and makes animators slaves to reality like i said before. Theres no way they should have to make textures and crud like that in a 100% animated movie.
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
@TheSlaveShow Why even make the humans look cartoonish if theyre in a realistic looking world? If disney animators think the only way they can get money is by playing up the realism factor than the whole point of animation is defeated. Its no longer about the best they can do for the movie its all about how they can make the most m.o.n.e.y.
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
@Serdikhan how do you explain what ugly is? and why is everyone saying 2D doesnt make enough money just because of PATF? That was a failure because no one wants to watch an in your face "don't be racist" point when nobody even is anymore :/
eliteprotobot 1 year ago
...Oh, and that picture of the 3D Rapunzel was not actual CGI. It was a picture for a children's book totally different from what's in the movie.
Serdikhan 1 year ago
@Serdikhan it gets the point across well enough i think. It doesnt matter what pics i found on the internet you should just use your brain to fill in the obvious o.o
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
Traditional animation works for certain animated movie not, all of them. And a 2D animated movie can't make the top 10 highest-grossing movies of the year list.
Nah, I find only 2D drawings of Rapunzel great, I'm already convinced the movie would not have looked good in 2D. Nothing in the movie was designed for a 2D aniamted feature.
Serdikhan 1 year ago
@Serdikhan The less I say about the unbeliavable amout of detail that went in the character's clothing, that made it a favourite of many people, the better.
Serdikhan 1 year ago
@Serdikhan what detail? they so didnt take enough advantage of detail they couldve added if thats what your saying
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
@TheSlaveShow The decorations the fabric texture, weathering, tarnish on metals, seams. It all looked unbeliavably realistic for a non-realistic CGI animated movie. I can imagine how totally unimpressive the character's clothes would have been if they were in 2D.
The more detailed something is, the harder it is to animate. Judging how the film went into developement I'm glad they made it CGI, otherwise it wouldn't have existed.
Serdikhan 1 year ago
@Serdikhan but thats exactly my point. Your talking about details that make it look realer not cooler. My idea of detail would be like speckled flowers all over rapunzels dress or something, not texture (we can do without texture because thats only for things you want to look real). It makes no sense to me why an animation should focus on looking realistic instead of focusing on looking cooler.
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago 2
@TheSlaveShow 0:47 that drawing of Rapunzel is kinda lame by The Princess and the Frog standards. Where's the shading for example. 2D animation has been upgraded by having blended shading. That looks more like a drawing for a children's book rather than a drawing for a 2D animated movie. If you're gonna show people the awesomeness of 2D, then show them 2D at it's best and right now screenshots of The Princess and the Frog are the best option.
Serdikhan 1 year ago
@Serdikhan okay whatever that was the only picture they had of rapunzel. not my fault. i searched for ages just to find that one. Dont change the subject.
TheSlaveShow 1 year ago
wow the normal cartoon one is SO much more satisfying to look at compared to the overly realistic thing they used o_o
eliteprotobot 1 year ago 3