I’m in the writing phase of a movie script for a film that I’ve always envisioned as animated. I intend to begin production on it myself once I’m finished with the writing phase. There seems to be a notion that 3-D animation is the way to go these days, since more and more animated films go that route. But I have always pictured the characters in 2-D. I’ve been told by some that 2-D is for straight-to-DVD Disney sequels and that new characters should be introduced to the world with all the bells and whistles of modern technology, a.k.a. 3-D animation. I disagree. Basically, I don’t think it would really affect the success of a new film one way or the other. It would only affect something which we already knew in one format being presented in the other. I’m not asking to be convinced, as the decision has been made and the film will be done in 2-D. I’m just curious about other Dopers’ perspectives and opinions.
If your vision is for a 2D presentation, then that’s what you ought to go for. 3D is great, but it’s not the only choice on the menu and not necessarily the best in every case.
Charger, I’m waaay outside the film industry - I’m just an audient - but my NSHO is that 2D versus 3D matters a lot less than the quality of the writing, characterization, acting, directing, etc. I contend that most Pixar films would be enjoyable as flip books with stick figures. Not nearly as enjoyable as the full-blown state-of-the-art computer graphics versions, but still fun. I think the animated movies that failed recently failed for reasons other than 2D vs. 3D or computer vs. hand-drawn. Example: Lilo and Stich a hand-drawn (style) 2D animated
CLASSIC!!!
.
Mama Zappa and I are watching Futurama on DVD. After several episodes where the commentary points out the 3D animation, we notice it now. Previously, we would barely notce when they went from 2D to 3D animation, or had mixed 2D and 3D in a scene. Yes, they’re trying to make the two different animation styles seamless, and to not have the animation call attention to itself, but much of your audience won’t notice or care.
Be warned - I am VERY alone in this opinion. For example, I liked Treasure Planet a lot! But it grossed about $27.50 world-wide.
Absolutely not. There was a temporary shift in Hollywood toward favoring 3-D animation because of the success of the Pixar films, but the pendulum is already swinging back as people realize that the Pixar films succeeded because they were damn good movies, not because of their animation style.
In any case, none of this matters for an indie production. You don’t have the resources at your disposal to make a blockbuster mass-market hit so you there’s really no point in worrying about the marketability of your movie. Instead you should be focusing on realizing your own unique creative vision. And if that vision is a 2-D movie, go for it!
I’m an animator. I prefer to work in 3D because I’m good at it and hand-drawing becomes physically painful to me because I tend to grip the pencil too tightly. That wouldn’t stop me if someone were to pay me to hand animate, however*, and you can get pretty good 2D rendering from 3D sources, like in Futurama.
2D “died” when Pixar started to make really good (and $ucce$$ful) 3D films at the same time that Disney 2D pics started sucking [del]donkey balls[/del] money from the Eisner coffers. Now that John Lasseter is in charge of all Disney animation, we’ll be seeing more than crappy 2D DVD sequels.
Have you considered cell-shaded 3D? You get the consistency of 3D with the looks of 2D. I personally love it ever since it started appearing (think Tarzan)
Actually, yes. This is the technique I intend to use. The software I have is Hash’s Animation Master. I’ve owned it for a few years, but have kind of fallen out of the loop lately as life got in the way. I may have to clean up any of my animation goofs, and throw in some fancy touches with Adobe After Effects.