:p

I don't care as long as it is a good movie, and it's Disney, so when is it not?

Hand. Drawn.

And they're always good animated movies (most of the time).

^That's what I'm saying!

Just because it's good quality animation doesn't mean everyone likes both kinds of animation equally.

In my opinion, CGI is just now starting to look decent after looking bland, clunky and colorless for decades. Most people only liked CGI for years because it was NEW. But when you compare 1990s/early 2000s CGI with 2D animation, the quality is not comparable. Only recently has CGI started to catch up.

Even if CGI and 2D are somehow equal in quality, some people might still prefer the colors, fluidity, and visual style of 2D animation. Just like how many people like the shapes, dimensions, and "realistic" style of CGI. ("It looks so real!")

There is a distinct difference in visual and animation style, and people are darn well within their right to prefer the style of one over another. It doesn't make them somehow petty, haughty or small-minded, it means they have artistic or visual preferences, same as most humans.

^ I respect your opinion. I'm not sure why you're all defensive, but I kind of agree with you. Now, both animation styles look fantastic, and I don't really care how it is animated, but how good of a movie it is.

I didn't like CGI when it came out. I remember being against Toy Story because it was new. I didn't even pay attention to the story. But as the years went by, CGI grew on me. I'm okay withe either one as long as the story is good.

Like i said before but over all 2D.

I think the characters look much better when 2D animated. CGI character designs still have a long way to go in my opinion.

That doesn't mean that I don't appreciate a well-done CGI movie, or don't think that there are movies for which CGI is the better pick, but I actually prefer the artistry of traditional animation.

The art here has a certain magic which I haven't really seen in any CGI movie. I do like CGI movies, but I prefer the animation style of 2D Animation.

I agree with AllegroGiocoso and Swanpride.

me too

:3

I don't care.

I love 2D, but CGI looks amazing at times. As long as the animation is good, I probably won't mind what type it is.

Disneyfan9648 I'm sorry to get so defensive. I get where you're coming from, but the way you say it sets me off. This is a poll that asks what animation type people prefer. When you and other people say things like: "I don't care as long as it is a good movie, and it's Disney, so when is it not?" "And they're always good animated movies (most of the time)" and "^That's what I'm saying!"

It seems like you're patting yourself on the back for being so enlightened that you're above petty little things like focusing on animation style. That you understand what's REALLY important about films ("story" and "good quality") and that people that don't feel the same way are poor, simple, petty, small-minded folk that get bogged down by little aspects that aren't important.

I'm sorry, but film is a visual medium. "Story" is not the only aspect. That is, there are more ways to tell the story than just what's written down on paper, namely screen play and dialogue. How the setting, buildings, objects, characters, wardrobes, movements, body language, etc. contribute to the overall look, feel, ambiance, subtext, etc. just as much as anything written down. With animation, this is all created by hand and/or computer. We're also watching the film for an hour to an hour and a half. If we don't like what we see, it can be difficult to enjoy it.

I personally don't like the way CGI looks. Like I said, for years it looked bland, clunky, and colorless. It's looking better recently, but I still don't like it. In fact, in a way, it's becoming too realistic. The characters almost look real, but if they're too stylized then they look bizarre. If they look more realistic but too idealized, I feel self-conscious because all humans have flaws and seeing three-dimensional human characters my age with impossibly flawless features that no human can ever have makes me feel inferior. This rarely happens though because human CGI characters actually tend to look like plastic (or rubber, depending on the film) dolls to me. I have a deep-seated phobia of living dolls, and many human CGI characters are starting to look like that. Especially Rapunzel and Elsa.

So, if I get defensive, I'm sorry. It's just visuals are important for a visual medium like films. If I don't like how it looks, it can affect my enjoyment of a film. "Story" is not the only aspect of films, and I don't like the implication that story is the only thing that matters and if people don't like or prefer certain visuals (like animation style) then they're somehow being petty or small-minded. Because I think animation style is important for telling a story, because the animation itself helps tell the story.

Does that make sense?

Yes, that makes a lot of sense, and I never intended to be "above petty little things like focusing on animation style." I never meant that. The reason why I created this forum was to get conversation out of people. I thought it would be a good topic. I personally like CGI so, as I said, I don't care how it is made. Each movie is made special by the way they are animated. I do not think that Princess and the Frog, or any of the other classics, would be as good of movie made in CGI. I just can't imagine watching PatF not in 2D. It was perfect that way, but, likewise, I would not like Tangled or Frozen as much if it was in 2D. They would all still be good movies, but they would not be as good as they are now if we would have animated them the opposite way.

And I agree with you that the story is not the only thing. The movie idea I suggested for the contest, Ancora, I personally think has a beautiful story. However, I don't think it would have the same effect if it was made live action, for example. I respect your opinion about liking 2D animation more, and I am sorry if I have belittled you because of the way I went about saying my opinion.

All I was trying to say was that, if a new princess movie comes out tomorrow and it is 2D animated, I will not think, "Oh dang, this isn't going to be as good because it is 2D," and the same thing if it was the other way around. I don't think that everyone should think the way I think about that either, it's just my opinion. I personally love both styles, CGI is modern and really interesting, but at the same time 2D animation is beautiful and classic. Also, 2D has a magic to it. 3D does as well, but it just kind of comeseasier with the 2D style of animating because every frame has to be drawn.

I really didn't mean to disgruntle you or anything, I just meant to start a conversation, and I was agreeing with the people that agreed with me personally. I don't think that your opinion is wrong, it is just different then what I think. For me, I would not pick just 3D or CGI over 2D animation. It would either be I like both of them, or I like 2D. The 2D is just magical and classic and awesome.

I hope I didn't offend you too bad, because I really didn't mean it, and I hope we can continue to discuss the topic of CGI(3D) against 2D animation.

P.S. I agree with everything you said, but I don't prefer one type over the other.

:)

^ You definitely have a very interesting and insightful outlook. I can't say that I like CGI, but I do agree with your observation the same story cannot be told the same way if animated differently. The Princess and the Frog's story and characters wouldn't be as good if CGI, and Tangled and Frozen as they are would not be as good if hand-drawn.

What's funny is I've been listening to Frozen songs without any visuals, and to my mind they sound so much grander than in the film. Especially For the First Time In Forever and Let It Go. I actually imagine traditionally animated visuals to go with the lyrics (like the magic scenes in Sleeping Beauty and Beauty and the Beast), and it seems so much more grand and magical. Almost like the kind of magic Uncle Walt made when he was alive. Then, as a test, I listened to the Frozen songs again with the movie clips on Youtube, and they seemed so much more mundane. To my mind, CGI just cannot capture the same magic, beauty, wonder, and grandeur that traditional animation could offer.

I personally think that if Tangled and Frozen were traditionally animated, the filmmakers would need to alter the story, characters, etc. to fit the more traditional animation style, but then I think I would like that style more. I feel like it would be less modern and casual (which is what so many people love about them) but more poetic and sentimental.

Again, this comes back to preferences. I definitely admire you for being able to love the CGI style and story method just as much as the 2D one. It probably makes you a happier, healthier person, and saves you the grief of realizing that mainstream hand-drawn animation is dead in the US. (Only Japanese anime and European indie companies still use it.) Regardless, that doesn't make it acceptable for me to take out my frustrations on you. I'm sorry I blew up at you. I know you didn't mean what you said that way, and you didn't deserve for me to react like you did.

I'm sorry. =(

I forgive you! :) I'm just happy we're not fighting anymore. You said you were listening to the soundtrack. Have you heard the outtakes? They're pretty good!

The CGI is god and all but the good old Hand Draw animation needs to come back to Disney. The proof that 2D can be as excellent as 3D or better is in Ghibli movies. That 2D animation so visually appealing it's enjoyable to look at. Sure sometimes CGI can be used for certain things but the whole thing is a no no. I want Disney to go back to Beauty and the Beast, Lion king and Pocahonats. Tangled and frozen would be just as good hand drawn.

^ frozen and tangled might have been good 2D, but now that I have seen them in 3D I can't imagine it any other way

Disneyfan9648 I'm not sure about outtakes, but I have heard cut songs. I actually would have liked the movie better if they had kept it in. I'm sorry to say, but I found Frozen a bit on the bland side. I also thought the main characters were a touch under-developed. I especially felt that Elsa and Anna were too similar to each other. They look too similar (apart from different coloring and Elsa being slightly more voluptuous than Anna, I feel like they look almost exactly the same) and act too similar (apart from Elsa being more graceful and reserved than Anna, I feel like they're the same person).

The earlier songs show them being more flawed and different. Elsa is more cool, aloof, and haughty, while Anna is more awkward, insecure, and dissatisfied with her role as being the "spare" to the throne. They also fought and bickered more realistically, I think, since most sisters do.

I guess eliminating their flaws make them more sympathetic, but I feel it also eliminates what makes them unique. I personally feel like Anna comes across as the generic awkward, clumsy girl for real awkward girls to relate to, and Elsa is the generic scared and misunderstood girl who tries to hide something about herself that society would not approve of, that most real girls with similar feelings can relate to.

Again, being relatable isn't BAD, but I feel like they also need to stand on their own as characters. Many people love them as they are, but I feel like they aren't as well-developed as most princesses before them. I don't know that much about them besides their longing for companionship, Anna's awkwardness and Elsa's powers/reserved mannerisms.

Anyway, I have heard the cut songs, and I like them. =)

Ok! :)