Whatever Happened to 2D?
Recent Hollywood Animation has adopted a sort of singular look in this day and age hasn't it? The majority of big budget animated films released in theaters nowadays seems to be primarily computer-generated. Why is this?
If I had to guess, I'd say because it's more realistic. The characters and environments have more constant structures and shapes which creates a much more real looking world than most other forms of animation. However, part of what makes animation so unique is that everything that it creates is unique. The entire world and all the characters can all have the most attractive, ugly, or outrageous designs, if it is desired. So, what exactly is the point of animating something if you're just going to make it look as close to live action as possible?
I feel like the fact that animation today is primarily three-dimensional is detracting from the creativity that animation is supposed to inspire. For example, look at modern Disney designs in their computer generated films and compare them to designs in their more traditional two-dimensional cel animation films, specifically their villains. Many of Disney's older villains have much more creative designs than their new ones. Compare Ursula from The Little Mermaid and Hopper from A Bug's Life. Ursula is half-octopus with black and purple tentacles, purple skin, and snow-white hair. Hopper is a grasshopper just composed of brownish-yellow colors. This is just one of the many comparisons I find myself making when looking at Disney's animation. With the exception of Mr. Waternoose from Monster's Inc. none of the villains in Pixar or Disney's own CG films have much memorability to them.
I feel that it would inspire much more creativity if Disney began making films with cel animation again, or just two-dimensional animation in general. Actually, I don't really think they should necessarily go back to 2D. Maybe keep it 3D but give it a different style instead of the same old same old. And it's not just Disney. Dreamworks, Blue Sky, and Illumination should all try the same thing in my opinion. Branch out into different styles instead of simply sticking to formula. One of the only mainstream animation studios I know of in America that doesn't follow this pattern is Laika, which specializes in stop-motion animation and has produced films like Coraline and Kubo and the Two Strings.
If animation remains in the more realistic three-dimensional style, then I fear it will begin to get stale for more and more people over time (It already has for me). I would be nothing less than thrilled to see a popular animation studio produce a film in another style, as it would give me some hope that there is still creativity left in film.
If I had to guess, I'd say because it's more realistic. The characters and environments have more constant structures and shapes which creates a much more real looking world than most other forms of animation. However, part of what makes animation so unique is that everything that it creates is unique. The entire world and all the characters can all have the most attractive, ugly, or outrageous designs, if it is desired. So, what exactly is the point of animating something if you're just going to make it look as close to live action as possible?
I feel like the fact that animation today is primarily three-dimensional is detracting from the creativity that animation is supposed to inspire. For example, look at modern Disney designs in their computer generated films and compare them to designs in their more traditional two-dimensional cel animation films, specifically their villains. Many of Disney's older villains have much more creative designs than their new ones. Compare Ursula from The Little Mermaid and Hopper from A Bug's Life. Ursula is half-octopus with black and purple tentacles, purple skin, and snow-white hair. Hopper is a grasshopper just composed of brownish-yellow colors. This is just one of the many comparisons I find myself making when looking at Disney's animation. With the exception of Mr. Waternoose from Monster's Inc. none of the villains in Pixar or Disney's own CG films have much memorability to them.
I feel that it would inspire much more creativity if Disney began making films with cel animation again, or just two-dimensional animation in general. Actually, I don't really think they should necessarily go back to 2D. Maybe keep it 3D but give it a different style instead of the same old same old. And it's not just Disney. Dreamworks, Blue Sky, and Illumination should all try the same thing in my opinion. Branch out into different styles instead of simply sticking to formula. One of the only mainstream animation studios I know of in America that doesn't follow this pattern is Laika, which specializes in stop-motion animation and has produced films like Coraline and Kubo and the Two Strings.
If animation remains in the more realistic three-dimensional style, then I fear it will begin to get stale for more and more people over time (It already has for me). I would be nothing less than thrilled to see a popular animation studio produce a film in another style, as it would give me some hope that there is still creativity left in film.
I agree that Disney films should make an attempt to make their newer films more distinct and vary in style. The only problem that I see with Disney going on to try different animation styles is that they really care about their Box office numbers. No one will argue that Kobo and the Two Strings is an amazing film but stop motion animation films sadly are very much underappreciated and do poorly in the box office. Kubo only brought in 77.5 million US. The last time that Disney tried to go back to 2D looking animation way back when they released Princes and the Frog and that brought them a good amount of money in the Box Office- 267 million US. But then compare it Moana's numbers - 643.6 million US- and its easy to see why the studio favors 3D animation.
ReplyDeleteGreat Post! With this continuing realism of Disney I almost wonder if feature length animation needs to contain a certain realism to it. Thinking back to the features I've seen whether they are stop-motion or animated, they always seem to have this real life quality about them in terms of look. Even the more artistic/out of the box movies like "My Life as a Zucchini" use a realistic look to them. That being said, most of the shorts we watch in class, aren't afraid to go for a more abstract look. For example, Bill Plymptom's shorts seem to warm the dimensions of a human as well as other concrete objects in the world such as a house. This makes me wonder if I could even watch a Plymton feature film, it's uncomfortable/off kilter style is very interesting for a short period of time; that being said, I think most people, myself included, can only stand seeing something so abstract for a short period of time before becoming uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteI have always preferred 2D animation over 3D myself, and seeing all of these big features as 3D is a little upsetting, but understandable. If the studios want to make money, they will make the decisions that will draw in as many people as possible. I agree that there needs to be a variation from the norm to spark more creativity in the feature animation industry. Right now, I feel as if all of the creativity is from story, which is great and all, but just imagine where it could go with more variations of animation venturing back into 2D. For now we wait and watch Bojack Horseman.
ReplyDelete