The only 2D movie

Well, it seems like that every new animated movie to come out and that is coming out in theaters is a CGI movie. But there was one 2D movie that came out fairly recently, It was the Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters, and it was full of the most offensive, crude, vulgar, overly violent, and disgusting humor of any 2D movie I have ever seen (it was rated "R" for crude and sexual humor, violent images and language). I am a HUGE fan of the show and when I saw the movie I laughed until my eyes watered because to me, it was one of the funniest movies I have ever seen in my life and I have seen a lot of movies. But I still find it strange that the only 2D movie to come out in a while has this[=http://img="410.imageshack.us" alt=""/img410/6625/aquateenpostercolonmovips1.jpg] this as its poster. I'm just wondering what does every one here think about that?

PS: That is the poster that was publicly displayed outside of movie theaters so I assumed that is okay for a link to be posted, I don't think it's breaking any of the rules.

Actually...it might be 2D, but computers still animated the film.

That's right. it was made primarily in Flash, and a number of other computer-aided programs.

Now, Disney is attempting to bring back 2d animation, thanks to John Lassater. Only time will tell if the CG-friendly audience will want to go see an "old fashioned" 2d hand drawn film agian

I saw the show once, and never liked it. But we all have our interests.
From what I've heard on Disney and 2D, it seems they are going back to it. From now on, all 3D Disney movies will be made by Pixar.

Only time will tell if the CG-friendly audience will want to go see an "old fashioned" 2d hand drawn film agian

I was under the impression that it was the network themselves that dubbed 2D "old fashioned", not the audience. If anything, people would be more than happy to see a 2D animated feature again. Even critics are starting to get a little tired of CGI, just like most people who are getting tired of watching everything in the same format (This is practically why most critics don't approve of horror movies anymore). I mean, looking around the Internet and seeing all the response and pleas for 2D animation to come back, I find it hard to believe anyone wouldn't want to see 2D. After all, everybody says they're seeing the Simpsons Movie. :)

The real 'key issue' here, I think, is whether the movie will have a good story/plot or not as it technically is the main thing that holds a movie and everything else together.

EDIT: Also, I enjoyed the Aqua Teen movie too, as I am a fan of the show. It had to be one of the rare movies to ever make me laugh out loud. :lol:

EDIT: Also, I enjoyed the Aqua Teen movie too, as I am a fan of the show. It had to be one of the rare movies to ever make me laugh out loud. :lol:

I loved that movie! I counted 64 profanities! :o

That's right. it was made primarily in Flash, and a number of other computer-aided programs.

Now, Disney is attempting to bring back 2d animation, thanks to John Lassater. Only time will tell if the CG-friendly audience will want to go see an "old fashioned" 2d hand drawn film agian

It will be nice to see hand drawn again,
Well we ever see the likes of Walt Disney, Don Bluth and max Flesher again?

Well, Disney is long dead, sadly. But I know some of their future films will definitely be 2D animation, along with a 3D one made to look 2D.

The last great 2-D film I saw was Ghost in the Shell: Innocence although it had a fair share of CGI. (I'm talking about newer films, not the old ones.)

I know, some people will say, "But that's anime!" Its still 2-D animation. I believe it was Eisner who said 2-D is dead. Clearly, he never did see GS.

2D isn't dead. It's just gone on vacation, and is due back real soon. We are on the verge of reviving it.

Last I heard, for awhile Pixar was running Disney, which is why so many movies from Disney were CGI. However in the last six months or so(?) I heard that the 2D portion of Disney was back in charge, and is again working on what is probably nothing more than cheesy and lame-ass sequels to the blockbusters from the days of yore. Hopefully I'm mistaken on the sequels bit x.x Of course, this has been mentioned to some extent above.

I personally like both forms of animation, and can see in the end the two coming together such as they did in the afore mentioned 'Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence.'

2D animation isn't dead, it's just trying to find its footing in a changing world. :)

Okay, let's clear this up one last time.

Disney bought Pixar outright, and put John Lasseter (one of the head honchos at Pixar) in charge of the animation department at Disney. Lasseter happens to be a fan of 2D animation as well as 3D (pick up one of the Disney-distributed Myazaki films and you'll have an intro from Lasseter most likely), so he has given the option to the directors of future projects to determine whether or not they want to do 2D or 3D.

Before this buyout occurred, Disney was looking at losing its distribution agreement with Pixar and was beginning to move into all 3D production to face the probable likelihood of competing with them. That's where all of the non-Pixar Disney 3D stuff came from.

While looking on Wikipedia about a week ago, I noticed some information of future Disney animated movies. Some were 2D and some CGI, but not one of them were sequels. However, I don't think they showed things that would be direct-to-video, so there just may be more crappy sequels skipping the theater.

As a former 2d animator, my theory is that some 2d movies will come out, but they wont last long. CG has just made it easier and cheaper to make films.

Sad as it is...

As a former 2d animator, my theory is that some 2d movies will come out, but they wont last long. CG has just made it easier and cheaper to make films.

Sad as it is...

And things like Flash and other animation tools are making it easier to do 2D animation, though what limitations that may be there with such tools I'm unsure of, but from what i can tell, there aren't many. Heck a good number of animated TV shows are using versions of flash to animate the series. Aqua Team Hunger Force as mentioned above, I believe is one, South Park being another if I'm not mistaken.

From what I know, Disney is releasing The Frog Princess as its next 2D film in 2009.

And, truthfully, the CGI Films are not true 3D. They are pseudo 3D because they do not immerse the viewer inside the world the movie depicts. Even with 3D Glasses, this does not happen.


So, I somewhat have to hate to break it but...the '3D' you see with CGI is merely "Deep 2D" animation.

I think when people use '3D' to describe CGI, they mean its 'more' 3D than typical 2D animation is.

Although I have played a few 'true' immersive 3D games before. Impressed the heck out of the owners of the booth to boot. X-D

3D is 3D folks. 2D is 2D. I'm basing my experience on what i've heard and seen in the animation industry, most specifically, overhearing a highly paid executive say ( back in 1992 ) y 'know, animation is great. if we didn't have to deal with so many damn artists"

The only studio that is actually run by artists, is PIXAR.

Now, just because you have things like FLASH, doesn't mean its makes animation easier. That is to say, feature quality animation like the kind you saw in Secret of Nimh. LOTS of people can make flash aanimation but ive never seen someone do animation of SON quality. Only web-based, cruder stuff.

In fact, here's a link to the trailer for ENCHANTED, which features 2D animation.

http://progressive.totaleclips.com.edgesuite.net/101/b10139_b2v.mov

3D is 3D folks. 2D is 2D.

Zohar is correct in the most literal sense. As long as you are viewing the image on a flat surface and there is no parallax[=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax]parallax when you change your viewpoint, you are watching something in 2D.

However, for the purposes of discussing animation, it makes sense to talk about CGI or Computer Graphics Imagery (which is probably the more accurate term) using the term "3D" because of the style and the way that the computer itself "thinks" about the scene. CGI, in fact, would be broader than "3D animation", since it would include 2D-like animation that was created wholly on the computer (ala flash).

</end pedantic post>

Well, in my opinion which ever way Don Bluth did The Secret of NIMH looks the best. I think it just seemed the most "organic", plus I've always thought it was neat when animated shows and movies could do a good job pulling off hand painted backgrounds.

I also know a future Disney film (I think it's called Ruponzel), is going to use CGI made to look like it was 2D animation. Might be something to check out.

3D is 3D folks. 2D is 2D.

Zohar is correct in the most literal sense. As long as you are viewing the image on a flat surface and there is no parallax[=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax]parallax when you change your viewpoint, you are watching something in 2D.

However, for the purposes of discussing animation, it makes sense to talk about CGI or Computer Graphics Imagery (which is probably the more accurate term) using the term "3D" because of the style and the way that the computer itself "thinks" about the scene. CGI, in fact, would be broader than "3D animation", since it would include 2D-like animation that was created wholly on the computer (ala flash).

</end pedantic post>

Basically, the '3D' you see on the flat screen was composed of 2D elements to give effect of it being 3-Dimensional, right? 2D Vector graphics and 2D raster graphics, things like that?

To me, it seems like the '3D' effect is made by layer multiple 2D images together which are off set to give the depth and dimension. I'm guessing that is how CGI works when viewing it from a screen.

The reason why I ask about that is because of a technique used by Don Bluth in Titan AE. If you in the background in the cafe on Tau-14, you see 'projected' holographic alien scripts sliding across a ticker. If I remember right, those are not '3D' but actually '2D' composites put together to look '3D'.

No professionalanimator has ever used the term "parallax". That's a video game term as far as we're concerned. Back in the day when 16 bit video game ssystems were new their big selling point was "parralax scrolling"

Whoop deed oo. it's still just 2D. no matter how much depth we try and give a drawing it's not 3D. A 3D film had actual depth to which a camera can move to. To infinity if need be.

No professionalanimator has ever used the term "parallax". That's a video game term as far as we're concerned. Back in the day when 16 bit video game ssystems were new their big selling point was "parralax scrolling"

Whoop deed oo. it's still just 2D. no matter how much depth we try and give a drawing it's not 3D. A 3D film had actual depth to which a camera can move to. To infinity if need be.

That's funny, I thought you said 3D is 3D. And...got any proof about professional animators not using the term 'parallax' ? Because, you know, I believe some animators and filmmakers are experimenting with bending of light to try to accomplishing that.

Basically, the '3D' you see on the flat screen was composed of 2D elements to give effect of it being 3-Dimensional, right? 2D Vector graphics and 2D raster graphics, things like that?

To me, it seems like the '3D' effect is made by layer multiple 2D images together which are off set to give the depth and dimension. I'm guessing that is how CGI works when viewing it from a screen.

Assuming you're talking about "traditional" 3D computer graphics, they are generated by constructing models of the objects and characters in a 3 dimensional space in the computer which is then rendered to a 2D raster image using raytracing[=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raytracing]raytracing. From that point the raster image can be transferred to film, assembled into a movie file and put onto DVDs and so forth.

The reason why I ask about that is because of a technique used by Don Bluth in Titan AE. If you in the background in the cafe on Tau-14, you see 'projected' holographic alien scripts sliding across a ticker. If I remember right, those are not '3D' but actually '2D' composites put together to look '3D'.

You'd have to ask Bluth about that specific effect; I'm not sure how it's done (and it's been a while since I've watched Titan AE anyway). I do know that they will sometimes use 2D art or animation as a "texture" for a model in 3D animation, which is useful when you've got a flat animation that you'd like to wrap around a 3D model, or manipulate in 3-space in a way that would be difficult to duplicate with traditional 2D animation.

No professionalanimator has ever used the term "parallax". That's a video game term as far as we're concerned. Back in the day when 16 bit video game ssystems were new their big selling point was "parralax scrolling"

Whoop deed oo. it's still just 2D. no matter how much depth we try and give a drawing it's not 3D. A 3D film had actual depth to which a camera can move to. To infinity if need be.

And you'll notice that was basically what I was saying, if you actually read what I wrote; when talking about animation, 2D and 3D have to do with the way the feature is made, not with the physical properties of how it is viewed. I never implied that parallax was something a professional animator would talk about (though I suspect they do, more than you think), rather I used it to describe a physical property that has to do with our perception of the world in 3 dimensions.

However, that's not what bothers me about your reply. What bothers me is the lack of respect that you seem to show other members of the community here. Your desire to get the last word in has blown a relatively silly discussion about vocabulary out of proportion with its importance. I'm sure that all of us know what is being referred to when we talk about "3D animation", "2D animation", "CGI" and the like. It's certainly not important enough to get bent out of shape over.

With this then, I declare the pedantic posts about the definitions of 2D vs. 3D should stop in this thread. If you /really/ want to argue about it, start some other thread, so that this one can stay a bit more on topic. Or even better, take it off the forum and PM each other or whatever.

All right everyone. I get really cranky when I delete posts and lock threads, so please cool off before I decide to do anything more drastic.

The rules are quite explicit:

1. Be respectful of others. Remember the old adage: "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."
   
2. No trolling, flaming or otherwise posting just to get a negative reaction or attention. This goes along with rule #1.
   [/list:u]
   

If I see anyone else disregarding the rules so blatently, my itchy banning finger will start getting exercise. Please don't tempt me.