Looking at the films released between 2000 and '05 and comparing Disney's releases from Bolt to Wreck-It Ralph, roughly estimated, audiences do seem to prefer watching 3D animated films over 2D films. Does anyone have any clue why?
I'm asking about the American film industry.
Other urls found in this thread:
cwseed.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
All your answers will lead to Disney.
Don't get what you mean, but Disney was the last major company to pull out of 2D animation.
Do they?
Maybe 2D just doesn't seem NEW and EXCITING and BIG SCREEN WORTHY anymore. From a studio's perspective it may look like audiences think that, but I doubt they actually care that much. Still, no one is crying for stop motion films every year. Of course Disney will always spin it as part of their legacy, working in a little Eric Goldberg here and there.
simply because 3D is often less cartoony and so not "just for kids"
I doubt parents personally want to watch either but when given the choice they'd rather 3D. I imagine it's largely an unconscious decision
I'd say it falls under the same reasoning as how many videogames are sold.
3 dimensions are more visually stimulating than 2.
The prettier product sells better.
Visuals are fairly superficial to some, but most don't agree and in the case of a passive entertainment medium it is made substantially less of a superficial aspect.
And then Japan keeps doing the old thing and they win an award in 2001 for Spirited Away but for every subsequent year the academy is like
It is better, though.
If we went by that mentality shouldn't we have a successful primetime 3D animated cartoon for The Simpsons/Family Guy audience by now?
Rango was more interesting but Arriety is the superior product through animation and passion.
It seems to have little to do with what audiences want, but rather what studios are willing to spend money on. The major studios are already heavily invested in 3D animation, so why go back to old fashioned 2D?
2D is just better suited for TV animated sitcoms
I don't know about audiences but Disney got rid of their 2D animation because Winnie The Pooh failed to do well against Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2.
...
And PATF underpreformed
Stay mad nostalgiafag
3D fags people. Not even once.
You both are a couple of fags. Passion is overrated when you're ==overbudget== . And, simplicity is often used as an excuse to be sloppy.
Why can't I red text properly today?
Kek
I don't need to take shit from newfags.
One of the reason I love the internet. We always give eachother nothing but
shit
all day long, but we still kiss and make up.
Lol gay
Quick, if you reply back to me again, you'll get…
Doubles!
user pls
CGI movies still count as 2d
Shit you stole my dubs.
It's not that audiences prefer 3D over 2D, it's just that these days, 2D films are far more expensive than 3D films
In a lot of ways, 3D films are a gimmick that overstayed its welcome
Blame the moron in the Doug thread who posted just before I hit reply.
They don't. Studios prefer them because they're cheaper and easier to make. Most of the traditionally animated films coming out during the period you described suffered from a considerable lack of promotion
Nah
significantly
once a model is built, rigged, and has had its various physics bits applied (jiggle bones, cloths, hair, etc), it can be posed, animated, and rendered infinitely in a short amount of time
So that explains why the models have some similarities.
Well, 2D still dominates television, although it does use 3D modeling for things like vehicles and some effects.
Audiences initially likely preferred 3D because it was something new, and Pixar's Toy Story films appealed to adults more than most of 2D animation produced so far. Same with Shrek. Success of these films led to audiences assuming "3D = kinds and me will have fun," and for studios discarding 2D in favor of 3D feature films to make more money.
However, since good looking 3D animation took money, hardware, and quite a bit of time, it wasn't as viable for television. Limitations in things like rendering water, hair, and going off model certainly didn't help, although they have been mostly dealt with it right now. Besides that, around the time 3D movies were rising to prominence, 2D animation in TV was experiencing somewhat of a little Renaissance with many great CN, some Nick series, Adult Swim, and McFarlane's cartoons.
These circumstances solidified division between 3D = films, 2D = TV. But what do I know, I am just a faggot on an image board.
To be honest, that's quite a tough choice. Both films looked gorgeous, had great designs, solid stories, and were entertaining. Tie would be the fairest result, but in case of Oscars ties are unheard of.
Minor detail, but WB cartoons also were part of that 2D animated TV series Renaissance of late 90s/early 00s, and it could be argued that they were the ones that actually initiated it.
I was just going by budgets
Oddly enough they're bringing back Constantine as a animsted show.
...
Really? Looks good. Hope the animation is up to snuff.
Looks kind of cheap, but it might be better in motion. Who are they aiming cartoon towards, kids or teens and young adults?
CW is geared more towards the teenager/young adults crowd (With some saying it's also the replacement for UPN).
However, I'd advise that you look up Vixen. It was a one-off miniseries they did a while back (That is canon to the Arrowverse), so it may be a good way to judge what to expect of Constantine.
Slight update, that I didn't know about until now. Vixen got a second season that aired near the end of last year:
I don't know why audiences, maybe because they feel it can either be more 'realistic' or just do what 2d cant (a unfair statement I'd say)
Meanwhile the big thing is that STUDIOS love it because it's so much easier to reuse assets and animations without being as noticeable as 2D, there are numerous other cost cutting techniques involved in 3D but a lot of them escape me at the moment.
It looks like the animation they've been using for a while now in their movies. It's gonna be shit and even more stiff and stuttery than Justice League Action.
It is the replacement for UPN. They literally merged The WB and UPN together
Toy Story cost less to make than whatever big Disney Renaissance film was coming out at the time (I think it was Pocahontas). That was when the technology was at its infancy and therefore the most expensive to produce.
Budgets for these films are usually inflated because they spend the money on getting tons of big name celebrities and other, superfluous, shit.
I remember seeing that. It was meh, the animation is a bit stiff at times and Stephen Amell and Grant Gustin aren't that great as voice actors.
Disney experimented with this in 2003, when they gave us Lilo & Stitch, which did really well. But then we got Treasure Planet, which bombed so badly that Disney's hand-drawn department was shut down.
Then they forgot about this shit entirely. Princess and the Frog's budget was waaaay too high. No hand-drawn animated movie should cost more than 50 million.
So handrawn animation is dead in the West then or will someone else try to take it up?
*Japan and French smiled while giving animated wave*
I think 3D was an exciting novelty for a long time since people had been used to 2D animation for the last 70 years. And since they were cheaper to produce (more profitable) than 2D, companies just pulled out of the 2D market altogether.
Also, vid related. Skip to 04:52. And, I know
But I think he has a point here.
Well Japan isn't Western but the French stuff seems pretty interesting. Are the Russians still doing animation?
I actually liked when he did that Disneycember thing. Now I think he does the Marvel movies for Disneycember.
I think he also did Star Wars, but I haven't watched any of his content in years. I think he did the right thing by ending Nostalgia Critic, and almost everything he's done since he brought it back was pure cancer.
Vixen was enjoyable enough, but there was a few problems with it:
I can't tell if they were actually shit or I was just too used to how they look on film versus this. Might of just been their voices seeming out of place with a virtual depiction that wasn't quite right.
The second season had Felicity in it, and she wasn't that bad.
Weekly releases of 4 minute episodes was a bit jarring. They should just release the whole episode at once on CW Seed and chuck it on the channel one night as a special after the main shows. Otherwise, they suffer from low viewership, and they don't really advertise it. I only found out S2 was released because I wrote it down on a calendar when the first season came out.
Oh god, this was awful. Painful, in fact.
Worse off, it was situated after the first season of Vixen, but before Legends of Tomorrow started, so it was a bit confusing if you watched it and certain characters appeared randomly.
Didn't hear about Constantine. Rather spoopy, as I finished rewatching the series just a few hours before they announced it at that expo.
Russian animation died after the USSR fell apart.
Webm or get out
It bombed because it had shit promotion. There were also production difficulties. Disney wanted it to fail so they'd have just cause in shutting down their traditional animation department
Yes, Masha and the bear is still doing very well and the current highest grossing films there are 2D animations based of russian folklores, like "Three Heroes on Distant Shores".
fuck off
There are a hell of a lot more kids learning 3d animation than there are learning 2d. It just isn't economically reasonable anymore. There will always be some 2d but it will smaller passion projects.
Masha is very popular in smaller countries. Having cheap licensing fee means they are easily affordable.
Three Heroes? You mean the Three Bogatyrs? They are fucking funny.
Don Bluth returned to get a Dragon's Lair made. The biggest draw of the whole project is that the film will be traditionally animated.
FUCK YES.
TWAS I WHO FUCKED THE DRAGON SING FUCKALIE SING FUCKALOO AND IF YOU TRY TO FUCK WITH ME THEN I WILL FUCK YOU TOO!
You think Nerdland bombed because it wasn't played up as 2D animated? Or did it bomb because it sucked?
I know two of the people working on it. They worked on the original game too.
...
Yes they did
which episode? GL just always called her Mari. I don't think Hawkgirl ever called her by name, and everyone else pretty much just didn't talk to or about her
...
Different user here.
Ya know. I had always assumed that was just her pet name or real name. I would figure her super hero name would be more, feral?
Well, it's not
shit, I guess I never caught it. That might be the only mention in the series though
Probably. Martian Manhunter is only referred to as such once in the entire series
My fear here is that they will retro-actively "empower" Daphne. They did it with Crash Bandicoot and I have no doubt they'll do it here.
If they don't then there'll be a feminist backlash on the damsel in distress trope. Most likely they don't have the backbone to resist that backlash.
Retards will be retarded if they don't be retarded in turn? I know that will happen but I'm saying that is a negative thing.
It is negative. You can't win in this situation. Or at least they can't.
Ignoring feminist backlash doesn't have any actual monetary negative, so that seems the smarter decision.
here
when she heard they were considering changing Princess Daphne's design to be less sexy, Mary Quaife (effects animator on the original game and working on the movie) actually voiced some incredulity.
Daphne's design may end up unaltered even if her personality is stronk womyn
I mean that's still a shitty state.
I always find it funny that it's the women (Not the men) in production that demand skimpier when it comes to the female characters.
Sex sells
Men are emasculated losers for the most part ESPECIALLY the ones working in media. They're neutered PC drones and Nice Guys. So they think that pussy begging will impress their chances to get Female Validation. And with that? Hopefully get some sex.
It's poetic justice that these losers get cucked and such. Either that or these are angry betas de-sexualizing women because they want to deprive general male audiences of any fanservice (except the males working in Japan ha ha!).
friendly reminder that with programs like Flash as well as the small handful of open source programs, 2D animation is also getting that cost-cutting effect that CGI has had for years. If the amount of technology is so great that artist can literally use the Unity Engine's pipeline to realtime rendering, it doesn't even begin to describe the sheer amount of potential to increase efficiency of 2D animation.
Flash is a very ineffective tool for animation, Toon Boon is better but the price is artificially high.
I sincerely think it's because 3D looks like it has more depth in color and other things visually. Like compare the two in your pic. The audience will be more attracted to the left because it looks more complex despite the right moving more organically and flowingly. 3D at least is on a level where it can mimic the organic animation of 2D, but it's much more complicated due to the fact that animators are molding and manipulating the model instead of adding frames which could allow more freedom in animation. If you want the return of 2D animation, I can guarentee that normies want something like this:
Youtube link is broke
they don't, 3d is just cheaper
Vimeo, and it's working for me.
...
Vid related is in cell shading CGI.
Now cgi is relatively faster since you don't have to redraw every asset and model each time, but it cost more since engine softwares charge around 1000 USD a week for renting the program besides animators having this compulsion of animating everything instead of letting some physics engine run some shit so they can focus in the important stuff (I compare that help to using black sheets for BTAS instead of coloring white ones besides the designs)
Shit, posted prematurely.
Usually you have CGI animators busting their souls out about how they had to program the physics instead of using Havok or any cheaper videogame engine like CryEngine rather than ILM's VX as if they couldn't do the same job, probably contact related.
Also pic related is awesome, I made a thread recently but got 404'd really fast, is fun, understandable for older kids, fair and as unbiased as you can get with WW2.
Is about two french kids going to live with their grandpas in Normandy during all WW2.
You have asshole Nazi soldiers, gentle Nazi soldiers, neutral lawful Nazi commander, asshole racist French, even jewish kids being send to peaceful towns in Normandy instead of the camps and the resistance doing heinous acts like using patriotic kids as suicide mission tools, not even teens in some cases.
Also I love plots about kids growing up, especially for 6 years when you can see them being wimpy kids to more independent understanding kids, and in the case of Muget to wait till she gets hot.
Not to mention that some 3D engines can make 2D too and far more easier.
...
Still compare PatF's budget to say Frozen or Inside Out
You're still assuming budget == production cost.
As always with these things the majority of the budget often ends up going to promotion and if a company doesn't have as much confidence in something they aren't going to sink as much money into it.
2d films are for kids while 3d films are TOTALLY SUBVERSIVE YO even though every single 3d animated movie does the exact same dreamworks shit where they are sold on being different despite literally all being the same. You can't all be fucking Shrek because Shrek already did that and now everything is Shrek
Is it any different than everything being Disney in the 90s?
You're not providing much evidence either
Not sure.
You have to change the culture to make them profitable.
the reason they are using 3d is because 3d looks pretty and stimulating and everything is about stimulation these days..
that and it is faster and cheaper and can do almost everything 2d can. there's a simple charm in 2d though that i think is very hard to produce in 3d. also i think 3d makes it easy to be lazy and not put in sufficient love and attention to detail.
2d > 3d for me.
i think old animation films show an amazing amount of creativity that new movies cant hold a candle to.
but i suppose that has more to do with the people and not neccessarily 3d/2d.
Literally yes, but engine owners up prices to ridiculous numbers.
This is not like video game companies who must pay the license fee for the game engine they use for their games . Animation can be made with stuff like Maya but you only need to pay the software once.
They don't. The industry just wants them to think they do.
I think they're tied by contracts to use specific engines.
Is not about the fees but about the engines being rented, is true they could use game engines to lower the costs tough.
Renting? When I learn 3D animation there's no such thing as renting engine. You purchase the software and use them whatever you want like other softwares. Game engines are different because they have scripts as well.
Here's the basic of 3D animation:
1. You "sculpt" items and characters. When done you can use them for various scenes.
2. Create "skin" for your "sculptures" Usually done with photoshop and illustrator softwares.
3. Create an "Environment" for your "characters" complete with lighting.
4. Set the movements, you can use motion capture or you can animate them yourself.
5. Create a scene.
6. Render.
7. Sleep, because rendering took a long ass time.
8. Done!
Also yes, 3D animation is still way cheaper. With 2D you must draw thousands and thousands of scenes with hand or digitally. With 3D you only need to "sculp" Woody or Buzz Lightyear once and you can use them for various scenes. Why do you think Toy Story is one of Pixar's choice of animation? Because 3D animation is like playing with your action figure, digitally.
I thought the story behind that choice was that the hardware nor software were good enough back then to render good skin and everything looked like plastic so they went with toys rather than people, proof being that people skin look like plastic in Toy Story 1.
Also, what if you pirate the engine? Will someone ever notice?
Oh yeah that's too. I mean my teacher even frowned upon cell shading skin back then (when it still looks like Viewtiful Joe). But in less than a decade we already have stuff like Tangled and Frozen with great lifelike skin.
Nope, go pirate away. No one will notice. 3DSMax and Maya are so expensive and their options really strangle people who want to learn 3D animation for fun. I mean seriously, Monthly, Annually and Perpetual license? Fuck that.
This is why I appreciate Adobe Flash. Yes it was a clunky software but it's affordable enough (or easily pirated) so people can learn the basic of animation and gave birth to many animators we knew today.
Use a proxy; not my fault you live in a third-world shithole that blocks websites because of nipslips but allows public beheadings.
Got nostalgic, my STEM highschool used to pirate SolidWorks.
No mention of Blender, a 100% free 3D program for those who want to mess with 3D animation (With, it's own internal game engine),.
Dude im from Burger land
Blender's interface is awful and unintuitive for people trying to learn. Suggesting blender is like telling someone who wants to make some text files to use fucking emacs. Sure, a few autists are going to like it and stick around, and proceed to tell everyone who doesn't like it that they are wrong terrible people.
The point of having a graphical user interface is accessibility.
Wow, I upset you so much that you had to post twice.
Anyways, the biggest draw of Blender, outside of being free, is how customizable it is. Also, I've been told that it prioritizes productivity of accessibility. And, I can understand why that makes the software unapproachable for some.
Meant to say "Productivity over accessibility".
We got it
Blender, like Gimp got very clunky interface. The upside of capitalism is that for profit companies tend to make their products easier to use.
What's your reccomendation for a learner.
Just pirate photoshop.
Paint.net works just as good.
Never tried it, any differences?
Will he still be fucking black dudes?
Hey Holla Forums and I don't believe so.
can anyone give an example of a breathtaking CGI movie, because i cant. i think that CGI has yet to show a magnum opus, for its medium sake. i can name some 2d movies that had moment that gave my skin goosebumps like in aladdin were jafar wishes to become a genie, everything that happen was beautiful. but what does CGI have nothing that i can remember, nothing daring or bold. i believe it is because everyone wants to make a family film, but that just wights the medium down. ive never seen anyone try to come up with anything similar to what disney is currently doing, death lets just have a character turn to ice or fall asleep, with that no one try to do something like melting a face or anything involving gore which is a challenge to animate, thus the medium is stagnate in a cycle of playing it safe, until said magnum opus comes to light, but right now that is not going to happen.
The only magnum opus with CG I can think of were some of the Fantasia 2000 shorts like the ones with the flying whales. Thats about it. Personally, I would like to see CG complimented with 2D animation like in Prince of Egypt.
You should have been around for the 2.4 years man. Those were the worst. I'd argue that while it's still not great, the UI improved when it jumped to 2.5.
And this is coming from a regular Blender user.
Maybe because by the beginning of the millennium 3D was still a hot "new" thing? I wonder how it'd be nowadays if 2D still had the same power as it used to..
Arguably the last Final Fantasy movie at least in terms of visuals. Like it's pretty impressive how so close to real it gets with it's CGI.
Could you expand on that?
Beowulf and videogame CGI cutscenes comes in my mind.
In Beowulf escpecially the scenes with Grendel are really terrifying.
What exactly you didn't understand?
The most recent "big" release of a 2D film was The Princess and the Frog and "Winnie the Pooh". And, neither films performed as well as any of the Disney 3D films they were released between. So, I was curious about the "…2D still had the same power as it used to.." part of your post.
All I meant was if we had more high budget 2D movies in production like we used to. You mentioned Princess and the Frog, but that was back in 2009 for example. There just aren't as many quality 2D out there nowadays for a fair comparison.
Don Bluth roughly estimated that it would cost $70 million to produce the entirety of Dragon's Lair: The Movie. Last I heard, that is high for a 2D film since most to cost less than $50 million to make, but, then again, that was for a film made over a decade ago.
If it does happen to go through, do you think it will be enough to gauge the public's interest in 2D media? Or, will the fact that it's also adapted from a game (One that's of historical significance) cause the film to be jaded in the eyes of the public for reasons why it did or didn't succeed?
Doesn't seem so strange when you consider that only women are in a social position to actually do so.
Women have a chance of defending something like the old design, if a man does it he's unlikely to be listened to and endangers his job for the trouble.
Just like with videogames and comic books, people are ashamed to admit they like watching cartoons. The closer they are to being "realistic" or "adult" the better.
But really it's because Toy Story and the like struck big and producers want the money
3D films are just the norm now because they're a hell of a lot easier to animate. You just need to rig a model, and then the computer will interpolate their bones between frames. Studio Ghibli is our last hope
I find Studio Ghibli to be, frankly, an overrated company. Outside of Nausicaä and Castle in the Sky, the rest of their stuff is more artsy than actually good.
My dude, I don't think you've watched enough Ghibli.
I've seen the middle three, and I didn't really care for them.
...
Like I said, the studio is too concerned about making an artsy film than an actually good one.
shit is just very well drawn, but in the end, is a nonsense trippy, pretentious "dude weed" crap for liberals.
They should care more on making sense of the plot than the art sometimes!
Howl's Moving Castle was based on a book and, despite a few minor details and names being changed for Gook pronunciation, it stayed pretty damn true to the source material.
Spirited Away had a simple plot but was still heart warming and had an important message for kids growing up.
The movie is korean, I did not know.
The moar you know….
...
What's your definition of artsy and pretentious?
Artsy I don't even know if is something bad as for pretentious I never god that feel from the movies.
Is not like if they just made a bunch of trash and called it art, these guys slaved themselves to make these movies for years sometimes.
At the end is the public who puts them on the top or doesn't.
I haven't seen Howl's moving castle so I won't talk about it.
I agree Princess Mononoke is overrated but definetely not trash and I loved Spirited Away, it felt like a classic 80's PG kid adventure but set in Japan.
The worst movie I've seen from Ghibli is Ponyo with a lazy plot but honestly my little sister likes it so it was not a waste, even then animators are fucking killing themselves to get that shit done.
i can agree with that, the problem is that the FF movie didnt have good writing, and plot problems which hold it back, the animation were amazing and it avoids the uncanny effect that is done when having live-actions with cgi.
the main problem it that the mainstream will never acknowledge it thus it is not a threat to dreamworks, or disney, so they dont have to worry about working on their animations, it's kind of sad and funny. for games its is a different case one being that it is not something the animations industry has to worry about because it is the game industry though the game industry gains something from animation it does not work the other way around the animation industry has nothing to gain from the game industry. the funny thing is that square enix has ties with disney, yet disney does not use that, they can animate, and model much better then pixar, problem is that then are not great writers. but until that happens nothing will change, and we'll just see more of the same.
Least Kingsglaive is still the most decent out of the FF movies. But yeah you're right Disney doesn't take advantage of those resources or offers to help Square at all to at least promote. It's pretty sad. Fucking mouse kikes.
On TV it does, possibly because CGI looks bland and low-rent there in comparison, while in movies the flip side is true
Both words are pretty much the same thing. As far as how I define it, the best way I can describe it is material that is BSing itself as something significant. Best example I can point to the the major criticism of high-school and college English and Art classes where the teacher think's they're an intellectual and know the world's secrets, and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.
And, for Ghibli movies, they are very artsy. Yes, the films look damn near great, but that is it. It's the same problem Hollywood films suffers from over the past several years, but approaches it from a different angle. Outside of Princess Monomoke (Where my criticism can be summed up as "It's Nausicaä, but much worse"), my problems with the Gibili films are either (A) they have stuff going on with little-to-no reason why, or (B) the story just goes nowhere.
Current zombie simpsons is 3d rendered to look like 2d. I know it's not the same thing but I thought it was interesting.
I still fall to see how is Ghibli's fault to be overrated.
The feels?
Feelings are real.
They did made My Neighbor Totoro, which I aknowledge doesn't goes nowhere but in that particular case I don't believe it needed, is not a crime to just write off a simple imaginative situation then having the talent and resources to animate it, much less the reaction from the public or the feels that causes which comes from the directing of an animated film, a strong plot was not needed.
They also made Spirited Away which I already mentioned, Grave of the Fireflies and (I know is a bio) The Wind Rises.
If a studio strenght is animation and drives the feels trough it and good directing why to bitch about the plot or lack thereof as something that ruins a movie?
Ghibli not making the movies you want doesn't makes them bad.
Like the Ponyo example, I didn't liked it, but my 6yo sister was the audience for it.
Because there have been films that were able to do better. That's the problem.
No, there's just films that you liked the most, some people don't want that plot.
Quoting from other thread.
Well then, good for them.
And, when Resident Evil: The Final Chapter comes out this weekend, I plan on spending my money to see that.
Lol
Looks interesting, I'll have to check this out.
im kind of glad that disney didnt help them, because if they did and it shows how much they're worth then they might end up of marvel or worse. but still kingsglaive had some of the best cgi animation ive seen yet, as someone who is trying to learn 3d modeling and animation (in blender) ill love to see the topology of their models. but that still leaves the main problem, that people dont acknowledge it then competitors have no reason to improve
3D lends itself better to poor writing.
Because the lowest common denominator always has shit taste and more money to spend.
Just like Doug Walker said, I know you people hate the guy but he gets the normos, even if the kind of stuff we saw in Paperman was perfected and we did CGI that looked like 2D and 2D was "cheap" again.. audiences would hate it, they like 3D CGI not because it is CGI but because " it looks like ppl!" so they can "relate".
I hate it, but that is how their soccer player- club dancing over sexed brains work.
It is instinct, normal people feel alienated by 2D, this is why they cringe to Anime, despite being realistically drawn.
Japanese dont becaus etheir eyes see the world diferently.
I doubt parents really care. I used to love Toy Story, I'd watch it all the time. My dad used to like Toy Story too, until I started watching it all the time and he turned against it. One day I put on either Beauty and the Beast or The Hunchback of Notre Dame and my dad said something like 'Finally! Something different'
What is this trash? This is on american tv now? kids watch this? holy fuck
The nips have never been good at stories anyway, in the sense that their best stories like the best western stories simply express their culture and genes, which wouldn't apply to me anyway because I'm not japanese.
Which cripples me in thinking how everyone is but a product of their genes and environment, with minor variations to increase the odds of succes at adapting and breeding. Even our best art is an expression of that reality. Especially our best art, which are the best expressions of ourselves, our genes, our history.
Honestly, The Princess and the Frog shouldn't have cost nearly that much to make. When adjusted for inflation, Fantasia cost around 75 mil and Sleeping Beauty cost around 50 mil, and those were two of the most lavishly produced animated films ever made, with no corners at all being cut. How did The Princess and the Frog, which didn't have animation anywhere near the level of those two, cost over 100 mil?
...
I was talking about the total budget of Fantasia and Sleeping Beauty, not just the production cost. According to Wikipedia, Fantasia had a budget of $2.28 million in 1940. Adjusted for inflation that's $39 million(Which is much less than I originally said. I must have hit a wrong key with the inflation counter the first time or something.) Sleeping Beauty had a budget of around $6 million dollars. Adjusted for inflation that's about $50 million. Again, these are the total budgets, not just production costs. Sure, advertising is much more expensive today than it was back then, but even but even if you doubled both of these budgets, they still wouldn't be has high as The Princess and the Frog's budget. You could even triple them and they'd still be less expensive than any of Disney's 3D movies.
Nah they are just a bunch of druggies dude, Japs do a lot of Marijuana, and high dosage of LSD Phanerothyme SATANIC experiences.
They are the Jamaicans of Asia.
I don't get how Cool World had a larger budget than Who Framed Roger Rabbit and ended up looking like shit.
Maybe all the money went on
A. changing the Hollywood sign
B. organising fake protests
C. Frank Mancuso, Jr.'s budget for cocaine and underage male prostitutes.
I thought Japs were mostly straightedge, or drunks.
There's next to no drug references in their culture.
He's full of shit.
But then you have flash animation which is basically the norm these days and really isn't any better
fugging lol
He truthseeker
I couldn't believe how trippy and nonsensical that Spongebob movie was when I saw it. It felt like it was made solely for the stoner audience and not kids.
You might be onto something. Big-budget CGI can be impressive, low-budget CGI isn't.
I've said before, TV CGI is kind of a trap- saves a ton of time when you have characters all rendered and ready to go, but as we see with Sonic Boom, creating NEW assets quickly becomes prohibitively expensive, and just having new background characters and monsters of the week strains the budget.
It is becoming a norm
Wasnt nbc trying to do a cgi liveaction hybrid show?