Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Checking login status…

USERNAME:

PASSWORD:

Logging in…

Logged in as:
.
Logging out…
Inbox My Account Log Out

ActiveObjectX's Banner

ActiveObjectX

Reviews Favorites Flash News Main
ActiveObjectX

Age/Gender: 20, Male
Location: New York
Job: Student

I make movies, animate, do some voice acting and whatever.

Newgrounds Stats

Sign-Up Date:
2/28/05

Level: 17
Aura: Neutral

Rank: Civilian
Blams: 6
Saves: 18
Rank #: 97,276

Whistle Status: Normal

Exp. Points: 3,060 / 3,210
Exp. Rank #: 6,345
Voting Pow.: 5.91 votes

BBS Posts: 2 (0 per day)
Flash Reviews: 10
Music Reviews: 1
Trophies: 5
Stickers: 0

Entry #8

Jump to Entry: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 ]


ActiveObjectX

3d animation vs 2d animation

Posted by ActiveObjectX Mar. 4, 2008 @ 8:40 PM EST

Since I've been doing animation, the argument of 2d vs 3d has been brought up to me. I pretty much always had just one view that worked for me. I didn't care as long as it is good. I honestly don't see much of a raging battle going on. The problem is people's view of animation in general. Well, not even people, it's the damn media presenting us this idea that 2d animation is dead and CG is the TAKING OVER. I always pretty much looked over this kinda thing, because honestly, I just like stories. I like telling stories animated, film, or written.

In essence, animation is caricaturing life. 2d or 3d. And what really matters if the STORY. STORY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER. STORY STORY STORY. Animation is just a medium to project the story, no different than film or comics, or books. The reason people say 2d is dead is because the last 2d animation features(in America) weren't that great, and weren't marketed well enough. The studio's ran away saw that 3d animation was getting successful, so put their money where THEY SAY the future is.

But those 3d movies weren't successful because of the fact they were 3d, it's cause they had AWESOME STORIES AND PLOTS AND CHARACTERS THAT SUCK YOU IN LIKE ANY GOOD MOVIE. To be honest, i I have a bias against 3d animation. The problem with it for me is that it just looks like a video game. So I always associate it with a video game. And even when 3d animation is done super duper well, it just looks like excellent stop motion animation. Speaking of stop motion, it's amazing, go do it.

Also I hated the Simpson's movie. It just wasn't that funny(though that is slightly irrelevant).

With the people read this are like, YOU'RE DUMB 2D ANIMATION IS GETTING MURDERED BY 3D.....actually that probably wont happen here since this is NEWGROUNDS...but anyways, it's like this. Look at Broadway, ya know, theater style things. Movies come along, and Broadway shouldn't exist anymore because they can do the same things except movies can be shown to a much vaster audience. Movies didn't have to rely on the actors or anything once it was done. It was just a reel, that was editing and ready to show why plays have the entire cast and crew that need to be perform. For a movie, you just need a projector and the reel. Why does Broadway/theater still exist even though movies are clearly better [not really] for what the purpose is?

Easy to answer. CAUSE IT ISN'T ABOUT THE MEDIUM CHOSEN TO TELL A STORY. It's alllll about the story and the way it is presented. Given, Broadway and theater is struggling recently with crappy plays based on movies and tv shows(...Spamelot anyone...it might have been good, but it was just the movie Camelot on stage). It is an experience seeing something. Theater is an experience, and I hope it never leaves cause it's badass(yeah, i called theater badass, wanna mess?). Movies are a diferent experience( though now with bootlegs and people waiting for dvd's the entire movie experience is going away which make Nate sad(Nate being me))

Photography comes along and should knock painting out of it's place? But people still paint! It is something different, a different experience. Good art doesn't die. Good stories don't die.

Anyways, 2d vs 3d, no battle going on. It's a matter of studios putting their money where the money went. That's why we are now seeing a string of bad 3d animated movies. They are trying to replicate Pixar's success. Pixar is successful because IT ISN'T ABOUT THE ANIMATION TO THEM. They don't make movies thinking, HMM LET'S MAKE REALISTIC WATER IN THIS MOVIE, NOW LETS COME UP WITH A STORY THAT LETS US DO THAT. NO! They don't do that! And tsk tsk to anybody who does that. They do what any good writer does when coming up with a story. They write it, then critique it, then rewrite it again!

I just love stories. And PEOPLE just love stories. The media likes to create battles that don't exist. The people running companies that give out the moneyz to make moviez follow where success has been. Thats why we see movies that are all trying to be epic like Lord of the Rings. Which led to the MEGA flop The Golden Compass(look it up, huge budget, nobody saw it, though I did have some friends who were excited about it). That's why 2d animation stopped being made(tsk tsk at Disney for using Dreamworks to animate the 'Disney' princess animated sequences in Enchanted).

Yeah so all in all, no battle. Just the studios stopped funding it cause they had bad turnouts. Good stories make good movies. Good marketing also makes success.

Yeah, so...yeah...?

Updated: 03/04/08 8:44 PM Log in to comment! | Share this!

The People Have Spoken

17 Comments

Mar. 4, 2008 | 8:56 PM Jaresk says:

I hate it when people compare 2d and 3d like it's a competition. They're both good in their own ways and I think, like you said, that the stories is what matters and 2d or 3d is only the ways the writers decide to represent their work. But I guess that when there is two thing that are different with some similarities, everyone always has to pick a side. Oh well...

Mar. 5, 2008 | 12:12 AM ActiveObjectX responds:

agreed


Mar. 4, 2008 | 9:03 PM MixedDrink says:

The only grudge I have against 2D is depth and movements are a pain and usually required to be Pain in the ass fbf. But that is speaking as an animator. I have never made anything in 3d. So I don't know how hard it is. But I do know one thing. When it comes to audience, your right, it all comes down to the story line at the end.

Mar. 4, 2008 | 9:42 PM ActiveObjectX responds:

I disagree and actually think movements are easy in 2d. It is extremely easy to do depth and movement with not a lot of frames. It's a matter of showing the right keyframes at the right times along with proper lightning and good angles. Some anime is very good at this.

I haven't tried 3d animation myself either, but I have friends who do it, and have seen people work with it. It is still a very time consuming, Making movies is a time consuming process.


Mar. 4, 2008 | 9:07 PM ZekeySpaceyLizard says:

i prefer 6d animation
so fuck you and your 2 and 3 shit
and fuck yo' momma!

Mar. 4, 2008 | 9:43 PM ActiveObjectX responds:

I was working with 6d and decided it didn't give me enough depth. I went up to 7d and my face exploded. Be warned.


Mar. 4, 2008 | 9:10 PM JACK-IN-THE-DARK says:

i only donne some 3D works on deviantart, but for animation i should say that 2D PWNS 3D

Mar. 4, 2008 | 9:45 PM ActiveObjectX responds:

3d might look good, but what 2d has that 3d doesnt is the feeling that somebody actually drew this. Watch sometihng like 101 Dalmatians and you can still see the animators pencil markings on the frames. It's truly amazing. When you watch any 3d animating movie, the animator is no longer directly connected to the drawings and it becomes very...souless in that respect? No disrespect to 3d though, it still looks sweet.


Mar. 4, 2008 | 10:04 PM Rammer says:

i do 0-D animation. that way, no one can complain about the part. if i'm feeling naughty, i might go up to 1D (:

Mar. 4, 2008 | 10:10 PM ActiveObjectX responds:

1d animation would just be a dot. 0d animation just means your lazy cause you are not making anything.


Mar. 4, 2008 | 10:04 PM Rammer says:

fuck i'm a dipshit. art*

why did i type part? >:C

Mar. 4, 2008 | 10:09 PM ActiveObjectX responds:

what?


Mar. 4, 2008 | 10:39 PM The-EXP says:

People like to argue over stuff, it's nature. They pick a side and most of them are too stubborn to change afterwards for fear of looking foolish. 2D Art 3D Art, My religion vs your religion. PS3 vs 360, 2D gameplay vs 3D gameplay and so forth. My opinion - Who cares? If you enjoy one over the other then do it.
P.S. 360 PWNS PSTRIPPLE LOL.

Mar. 5, 2008 | 12:11 AM ActiveObjectX responds:

indeed.


Mar. 5, 2008 | 12:50 AM EvilSeed says:

i tought you were going to talk about people doing 3d and 2d in newgrounds and wich is better here... but, yeah, about what you said, i like em both but only if they are good movies... i dont like those Barbie movies and they are 3D.

About wich is easier, ive done both (check my movies(im not pro, but i think it counts)) and i have to say, that for me, both of them are easy as long as you know what your doing, they only take time, a lot of time... in 2D you have to draw you character a thousand times, while in 3d you have to "build" just one, then move it whatever you want... i could even say that 3d is a little bit easier for me, since "moving" a character is less tiring than drawing him in alot of different positions.


Mar. 5, 2008 | 1:53 AM Kajenx says:

Actually, I like acting in animation better than story. Animation is all about the acting. Tom and Jerry has some of my favorite moments in animation, and there's never really a story in those.

Pixar started the whole thing. All of the idiots in the media thought the audience was responding to the 3D. Really, Pixar just makes great films. Ironically, they trained in all 2D animations for their staff.

After the hype for 3D dies down a bit, 2D will settle in again. They both take the same amount of work, and they have a different feel.


Mar. 5, 2008 | 4:30 AM Slintas says:

I agree what you said about the story, but personally I hate 3D animation. God I wish they would go back to the good old 2d animation like in the 20's - 60's... and 90's (Ren and Stimpy)

But that will never happen :(


Mar. 5, 2008 | 7:31 AM Sticky says:

I kind of skimmed that whole thing but I think I got the gist.

I don't think it's a matter of 3d vs 2d though. I mean they're both different art forms. You could compare 3d to claymation really. It's just that 3d is easier for studios to create quickly and have a nice looking product which is why it's more abundant nowadays.

I've always thought stories were the most important part of a movie too.

Mar. 7, 2008 | 1:10 PM ActiveObjectX responds:

I agree with what you say here. Infact, I said that exact line. Well done 3d animation just looks like really good stop motion. Whatevs.


Mar. 5, 2008 | 9:45 AM FreekC says:

3D cartoon animals are killing animation.

Mar. 7, 2008 | 1:09 PM ActiveObjectX responds:

nah.


Mar. 5, 2008 | 2:03 PM Dazmi says:

I don't really care.

2-D is good for a dumb little cartoon aimed at dumb kids, and 3-D is good for a dumb little CGI movie aimed at dumb kids.

:3


Mar. 25, 2008 | 5:20 PM TheGuardianAngel says:

ain't that the truth! but then, if there weren't battles and conflicts all over, the news people would be out of business.


Mar. 29, 2008 | 1:59 AM ifailtestsnot says:

this may be off topic but...what are you going to submit for pico day is it going to be a sequel to your last pico day submission. oh and 3D is better

Mar. 29, 2008 | 3:40 PM ActiveObjectX responds:

I wasn't planning on doing a pico cartoon this year.


Mar. 30, 2008 | 12:24 AM ifailtestsnot says:

Aw man...

Mar. 30, 2008 | 1:46 PM ActiveObjectX responds:

yeah, sorry. It is still a month away, so there is a small chance I'll start a pico thing...but I wouldnt count on it.


Apr. 12, 2008 | 4:04 PM lewis1994 says:

i think that 3D is a lot harder to animate and stuff. But i have never tryed a 3D software yet only 2D. So i don't know which is better? Wat do u think?

Jump to Entry: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 ]