3Dfags will do anything to imitate 2D animation

3Dfags will do anything to imitate 2D animation

instead of make actual 2D animation

What is this mental illness

AI

It's called Op is a faggot

The choices are abstraction or realism and realism has gotten to the point where it’s not only oversaturated but diminishing returns on how impressive it is.
James Cameron’s Avatar franchise is 98% cartoon. I’m thankful that CG is finally starting to embrace unreality and break out of the same old shit.

2D uses rotoscoping
why don't they just make live action films?

2D uses rotoscoping

You don't know anything about 2D animation

retard

That is still 3D, dumbass

retard

It's going out of its way to imitate an inherent feature of 2D that's not inherent to 3D

It's called having fun

I think he’s saying that complaining about 3D animation imitating 2D techniques is like complaining about 2D using rotoscoping to imitate real life

People hate rotoscoped animation because it lacks the advantages of 2D and looks cheap

If cinema can go more abstract and 2D cartoons can go more gritty and realistic I see no reason for 3D CG going more abstract.
It’s the same complaint that people have when they say realistic portraits are the only real art and cartooning is invalid.
CG’s roots are more wild anyway:
youtube.com/watch?v=8_KDAqx4ltE

Against 3D going more abstract*

3Dbrains have been poopooing their own “limitations” for a while and have been worshipping reality emulation for too long. Only now are they realizing that abstraction isn’t a flaw.

Would you prefer if they just made it indistinguishable from live action?

I would prefer if they made it 2D

Looks just like Korean CG animation.

2D only uses animation on twos to save on budget

all ambitious 2D animation is one ones and it's considered the gold standard

3D intentionally drops frames it can get for free to be "le so solfoul and quirkeee xd just like 2D"

I can't be the only who thinks this is disingenuous and obnoxious

The first two points are the issue, not the third.

For me it's 2D + 3D animation
youtube.com/watch?v=EQSshFiwOZU
youtube.com/watch?v=5rpPtwIQrtI

The third one is the crux of the issue, it's like buying intentionally ripped jeans at a premium

no people love it
the most successful Disney films employ it

False analogy. Realism and “perfection” is only interesting when its not been achieved/you’re pushing the medium forward to achieve it. Once you hit the zone of diminishing returns you begin to realize the “flaws” of yesteryear are actually assets and the more interesting thing to do is embrace more possibilities with your medium.
Cartooning is itself one such innovation, if your mindset had its way we’d only be treating renaissance paintings as ideal illustration.

stylization le bad

As a rotoscope enjoyer most people don’t like it when they can see it.

And you can't apply that logic to premium ripped jeans because..?

Stylization is good, intentionally making shit FPS is not

I agree. My only complaint is that it feels like we took to long to get here.

Because the analogy was made in bad faith with an extreme, still operating under the framework that realism = good/operating well and abstraction = bad/dirty/indulgent.
Stressed jeans are a fine comparison.

Doing 3D animation on twos or even threes when 60FPS is free is an extreme though

No it actually isn’t, it only feels that way because the quest for realism/fidelity in 3D has been so singleminded for so long.
Look to some indie video games for the actual extremes.

It actually is, there are no benefits to such extremely low framerates, which have always been considered a budget measure or a performance fault, it just looks bad

Less frames = more readable keyframes = each frame has more impact. It gives an analog look.
It’s not a video game where interactivity is a concern, so it’s a perfectly valid aesthetic choice, it’s only associated with a flaw during the push for realism. Now that the fidelity floor is so high, it’s no longer a mark of failure, but a choice.

I think it’s ugly

That’s fine, but that doesn’t mean it *is* ugly.

Stop Motion has low frames = SOUL

CG has low frames = NO NOT LIKE THAT

Less frames = more readable keyframes = each frame has more impact

You have no idea how animation works, you can emphasize keyframes without dropping the framerate of the entire thing

That’s fine, but that doesn’t mean it *is* ugly.

It is objectively ugly

Correct, see

Its not a video game you retard. You dont need to react to an enemy shooting at you. It's just a movie.

Who said anything about reacting? Animation on ones is just inherently better looking than animation on twos or worse

kusogebrains posting where bro believes animation is entirely carried on fluidity alone

Please stop coming to Anon Babble
.

shit fps

Get out.

Nope, you’re confusing your aesthetic preferences (opinion) with fact. We’ve achieved the ability to get what you want, especially in 3D. It’s no longer novel, but the norm. That’s when experimentation starts to take hold.

Kys weeb

Strawman

Brainlet

2D and 3D are in opposite spaces in the cycle.
2D (as a generalization) has gotten so abstract and minimalist that it has crystalized into a corporate paste.
3D has gotten so realistic and high fidelity that it needs a little more abstraction to keep it interesting.
To stay fresh, 2D needs more classical ambition and 3D needs to get weird.

i am he who consumes western and weeb shit. i am the idiort.
autistic.

No, you're confusing *your* preferences with fact, the people who built the animation industry and principles all championed animation on ones as inherently superior, and I think they know a bit more about it than you

That’s when experimentation starts to take hold.

You can't shit on a plate and call it experimentation

You're comparing theatrical 3D to television 2D

The last major theatrical 2D (tier) movie was Klaus, and it BTFO the collective animation industry of the past 20 years

In your worldview, why do you like cartoons more than renaissance paintings? Aren’t they inferior?

Klaus visually is a marvel lol. 2d that mimics 3d fucking is insane.

Klaus

2.5D

So, you agree with me.
2D should have more classical ambition. Something is lacking in 3D.

why do you like cartoons more than renaissance paintings?

I don't, they're separate mediums

Aren’t they inferior?

Technically the individual drawings are inferior due to the enormous workload of animating frame by frame, and conveying information in motion clearly, so the inferiority serves a practical purpose, 3D has no such limitations and artificially adopting them for subversion's sake is retarded

I have very specific preferences, I have not shared them, they are not fact.
The old masters were pushing the mediums forward in one direction, because that direction was novel, inspirational, hasn’t been done.
Then UPA got weird with it and the conversation changed. Now that we’re in UPA’s world, it’s time to start talking about the other side of the spectrum, that conversation briefly happened in the 90s, but we’re back to extreme minimalism.
3D has had no such awakening yet.

For as bad as sakugatards are, they at least have some idea of how the medium works. Anon Babbleiggers don't.

The individual frames are inferior

That’s what I was looking for. So you believe abstraction just *is* worse? And that’s a physical law of art outside of yourself? Why not just become a cinephile?

Sakugatards just care about frames being maximum even if the rest of the show is barely animated lip flaps and stiff as fuck boring shots of one or two people walking or standing around and talk rather than being consistently well shot and well framed?

Platonic idealism is a cancer on aesthetics.

False, framecount autism is predominantly a western thing.

Laziness

counterpoint, gear five luffy looks like shit yet so many sakugatards post that shit even though its just flashy visual noise without any flow at all? They want their keys jangled in front of them

Human photocopiers are impressive when you first encounter their art but very quickly it becomes boring.
Intentional abstraction holds a lot more power.

60fps

Gamerbrain is a mental illness

That's more a western thing.

Because they wanna flex

Abstraction in this case is literally referring to corner cutting due to lack of money, skill, effort, time etc

These methods were invented for practical purposes, not artistic ones, and I'm sure you don't spend time looking at *actual* artistic abstraction like Piet, Pollock, Rothko etc

One Piece people are cultish and Toei sucks ass. Western shonen fandom is full of younger/less experienced hypebeasts that are entertained by razzle dazzle for the sake of it. Gear 5 is hardly a representation of the Sakuga group.

And we live in a time where high frame photorealistic CG can just happen now. Those corner cuttings can be repurposed into intentionality, and new abstractions can be discovered.

do you not watch anime? Like have you not seen how many shows rely heavily on close up shots of faces or walk cycles? Mind you thats not every show but like god it gets bad.
you know what, fair. i just prefer good animation to be more subtle than an epic fight only because its easy to make something exciting look good. But the mundane? the boring? The commonplace? That's where the money is

Anime is the most successful form of limited animation precisely because they chose composition and more complex character designs to achieve a more cinematic look. Limited cartoons spec’d into minimalistic designs and framecount.

And we live in a time where high frame photorealistic CG can just happen now.

I never advocated for photorealism

Those corner cuttings can be repurposed into intentionality, and new abstractions can be discovered.

Sure, and they can then intentionally look bad, like they do in the case of intentionally low FPS 3D animation

Close ups are fine if draftsmanship and boarding are on point. That's one thing sakugashits don't get.

I never advocated for photorealism

It’s the logical conclusion of your maximalist mindset. The push for fidelity. The fact that you do have SOME idea that abstraction can enhance art is a contradiction to your “objectively good” position.

They can intentionally look bad

The “bad” is your subjective interpretation.

Yes but that requires experienced and developed lead animators and storyboarders and isekai slop #481 is not sending their best to work on that show. You can make good close ups with excellent framing, color work and impressive design work but that doesnt matter if its with the most flat boring composition, static use of lighting/chiaroscuro to make a scene look two dimentional and rudimentary or non existent perspective work because they got somebody inexperienced or without talent.

This I do agree with. Something like Berserk ‘97 shows that low frame anime can be aesthetically valuable. “Sakuga” isn’t the be all end all of aesthetics.

It’s the logical conclusion of your maximalist mindset. The push for fidelity.

No that's you projecting your trash taste

The fact that you do have SOME idea that abstraction can enhance art is a contradiction to your “objectively good” position.

It's not, I'm literally saying abstraction in the case of comics, cartoons, anime etc comes from the limitations, which justifies them, 3D animation doesn't have those limitations so artificially adopting them in order to look worse is a stupid subversive trend by artists who lack the skill and creativity to make 3D animation look good on its own merits

The “bad” is your subjective interpretation.

It's not, it looks choppy and the frame rate is inconsistent with the visuals (as opposed to low framerate 2D or stop motion where it's consistent which offsets some of the ugliness)

It has everything but frames.
youtube.com/watch?v=odIwkGztmcc

ESLfag go away.

Taste

So you acknowledge subjectivity?

I'm literally saying abstraction in the case of comics, cartoons, anime etc comes from the limitations

Does it? Would it be better if everything was rotoscoped? Or if we only hired people who draw in a realistic style? Does abstraction hold no power, it’s ALWAYS a flaw?
LFR CG is an intentional choice, they could have made it not that. Why would they do that? Could it be that they are pursing an aesthetic interest that they subjectively thinks has aesthetic value?

You’re just doing a longwinded “stop liking what I don’t like”.

I’m used to things being one way, and I don’t like things that are different

Ok.

nice try

I just want more variety. I can like more than one ideal or style but when shit starts getting stagnant and samey I want to see different stuff.

Can't figure out which is worse, acting like a retard or being retarded?

artists who want to enter the animation industry love 2d animated films but are forced to go into 3d because that's what the industry makes, I literally watched a video where one person said they were given the choice between 2d and 3d in art school and picked 3d, because realistically learning 3d is the option you choose to maximize making money in the industry. Personally I go to an art school as a 2d animation major but even I know I'm a dumbass doing that because all my peers are in 3d and learning to make games and I've had friends tell me I'm crazy for wanting to learn 2d animation with the state of the animation industry right now

I don't understand your faggoty and retarded complaint. Do you think animation mediums are supposed to be limited to certain styles for a specific reason?

It’s a common error in the arts to conflate higher fidelity/realism with beauty/“the good”.

get to make wacky expressions, appealing/complicated designs and experimental visuals without having to learn perspective, shading, or having to perfectly recreate a character’s anatomy from scratch everytime

Why don’t more people go into 3D instead?

Because it isn’t the same. 2D is harder and easier to mess up but it has more control.

more control

Control of what? Being able to perfectly do beanmouth?

I think if you venerate 2D animation, make 2D animation instead of trying to twist an inherently inferior medium into an imitation of 2D

So you acknowledge subjectivity?

Always did

Does it?

It does

Would it be better if everything was rotoscoped?

No

Or if we only hired people who draw in a realistic style?

No

Does abstraction hold no power, it’s ALWAYS a flaw?

I literally just explained that abstraction is necessary in certain cases due to limitations, 3D animation is not subject to those limitations

Could it be that they are pursing an aesthetic interest that they subjectively thinks has aesthetic value?

If they're pursuing 2D animation, they should just make 2D animation

You’re just doing a longwinded “stop liking what I don’t like”.

You're just doing a longwinded "I have shit taste and shit skill but want the acclaim of good taste and good skill anyway" tirade

Always did

This you?: >It is objectively ugly

Something can be objectively ugly in a world where subjectivity exists, do you have trouble with this concept?

abstraction is necessary in certain cases due to limitations

Are limitations bad? It seems like you’re saying they are. So, what you’re saying is “abstractions are lesser”.
Only within agreed upon (subjective) criteria, which nobody is obligated to share. If you disagree with this point then by all means show how you reconcile subjectivity and objectivity.

why is animation twitter aka Anon Babble shilling this shit very hard?

Retard

Which shit, cartoony CG bad or cartoony CG good?

using the term "beanmouth" unironically in the big 25

Are limitations bad? It seems like you’re saying they are. So, what you’re saying is “abstractions are lesser”.

I never said that, I said selectively imitating limitations you're not subject to in an attempt to lend legitimacy to a medium you believe is inferior yet still chose to work in is retarded

this whole trailer

Scarcity determines value. When high fidelity/realistic CG was scarce, it was the mark of value. Now that it’s the mundane/expected, stylization has raised in value.

Funny how that doesn't apply to just regular 2D animation

I know, but I’m thinking critically about your argument, which comes with several assumptions that you can clarify if you want to make your case.
Assumptions such as:

Abstractions are a result of limitations

Abstractions should only arise from limitations

Abstractions are undesirable outside of those limitations

”The Goal” is to transcend past those abstractions

If you try and use abstractions you believe the medium is inferior for not needing them

an inherently inferior medium into an imitation of 2D

Are we living in the 90s or something? 2D animation has looked like shit for a while now, even anime has gotten same-y. Hard to say it’s still “superior”

But it does. 2D has had several tug of wars between abstraction and realism. It started more abstract, worked towards realism, and then UPA started a trend of abstraction again, and then there was a fidelity counter-strike in the 90s, and now we’re back in abstract land. Many people want to see 2D go higher fidelity again, because that’s what’s scarce. If it ever did, then stylization would become a novelty again.

This I don’t think is fair. The industry has fucked over 2D and it is not meeting its potential through no fault of its own. Anime was always more stylistically homogenized because it was less abstract than cartoons.

I meant quality 2D animation is scarce, yet no one is doing it despite the supposed value

Photography hasn't somehow surpassed painting just because renaissance tier paintings haven't been made in a while, the peaks of 3D aren't even close to the peaks of 2D

That’s an issue with the executives/industry, not with the audience sentiment.

You need to work on your reading comprehension because I never even implied any of that, how can you read and think I'm saying all abstraction is a result of limitations

Define quality 2D animation.

Classic Disney, Bluth, Richard Williams, Satoshi Kon, Akira

You refuse to answer questions or clarify and instead restate without elaboration.

Abstraction in this case is literally referring to corner cutting due to lack of money, skill, effort, time etc

Is this a bad thing? Are limitations bad? Are the abstractions as a result of the limitations bad? If the abstractions are not bad, then why are they bad if they are an intentional choice?

What are the commonalities between them, and why is that quality?

Not a definition. Be specific.

TADC makes me excited for the future of 3D. First time I’ve cared to know about individual animators behind cuts, largely because they weren’t going for the same old Pixar unified thing.

Animation directed, supervised, designed, keyframed, executed by master animators and painters who understand and utilize animation principles on the highest level and manually consider and go over every line, shape, and color on every frame, either by directly drawing them or approving manual in-between work, to achieve an illusion of life that far surpasses raw recreation of real life motion

All I read on this board is how people in the industry can’t fucking draw, but when I point out 3D looking better, now we can’t blame the artists anymore for being talentless. Either learn 3D or get a wagie job. The top Indie shows are 3D.

the peaks of 3D aren't even close to the peaks of 2D

you clearly haven’t seen arcane then.

you clearly haven’t seen arcane then.

I have, for 3Dshit it looks pretty good, and it still can't touch e.g. Akira

illusion of life

Okay so other than your romanticism over the process, your definition is the Disney 12 Principles? Why is this the platonic ideal, by which everything else is judged, even if they aren’t going for that?

Is this a bad thing? Are limitations bad?

It's neutral, just something that defines a medium

Are the abstractions as a result of the limitations bad?

No

If the abstractions are not bad, then why are they bad if they are an intentional choice?

Same reason why unintentionally ripped jeans became a staple of the organic punk movement but $2450 ripped jeans are for clowns

They pick up subpar talent but even that subpar talent isn’t stretched to its full potential by this cancer industry. 3D simply has more institutional backing.

Answers, now we’re getting somewhere. So you gotta be very clear and not retreat to analogy here:
What makes abstraction-via-limitation good aesthetics, and abstraction-via-preference bad aesthetics?

It's not, I brought up anime movies that don't follow Disney principles but still utilize manual frame animation to create something that looks believable but still surpasses what live action or 3D can depict creatively

It's cheaper and easier to do 3D

And when you say believability, do you mean realism? Or do you mean something else?

Just being able to buy what's happening in front of you as a real thing instead of a gimmick, curiosity, spectacle etc

Define abstraction-via-preference

Okay, and what do those films do to be more believable than more abstract works, let’s say, Samurai Jack?
Also, just to clarify, do you think you’re describing an objective reality of aesthetics or are you simply articulating your preferences?

Boy, I love those stop motion films I grew up with, they have a unique atmosphere and aesthetic. I should imitate the lower frame count in my CG work to bring out that feeling in others.

Would be one example.
Strict definition not by analogy is

Choosing abstraction because you like the aesthetics of abstraction

Chalk Zone wouldn’t be a better show if the Chalk world wasn’t stylized to look like chalk drawings from children. Agreed?

It feels more unfair to say 3D is inferior, since it didn’t have most of the 20th century to develop like 2D and even stop motion.

Oversimplification at best.

Neither are superior or inferior they have strengths and weaknesses. The only unfortunate thing is 3D has extreme industry advantage, I wouldn’t mind if the two could co-exist.

People shit on 3D because the industry treated 2D terribly like it’s a zero sum game.

2D animation repels the majority of audiences. 3D is a middle ground between realism and art styles.

You can make a realistic 3D animation about people or a stylized 3D animation about a cute animal and most people will see it.

mix those two things together and you get lilo and stitch 2025

2D animation repels the majority of audiences

It’s not 2008 anymore this take is out of touch ridiculousness. There’s a reason why anime keeps growing in the west. Audiences miss 2D.

Nothing, Samurai Jack meets all the criteria for quality 2D animation

Okay, then why did you only include those specific films as examples? If it’s not detail, or framecount, what is it?
And more importantly what is it not?

Hello Mr. Executive you should have learned this in business school but you actually create markets by fostering them and feeding them.

…and not by focus testing randos who haven’t gotten a good meal in a decade.

Klaus was bullshit because it tried to look 3D which negates the point.

Yeah, it’s growing, it shouldn’t be growing. It should have grown ages ago.

The majority still do not care about 2D. Slap some realistic 3D and you get people to watch it.

It sucks and I hate it, but it’s just how people are at the moment.

Clearly my executive buddies are either too retarded to figure this out or they do not care.

Whatever makes the money flow, I guess

This is wrong. People like 2D when they have access to it. The issue isn’t with the audience, but with the industry. They aren’t fostering the demand at all. You can’t have Marvel audiences before you make Marvel movies. Duh.

They drop frames for reduce rendering time. See in Spiderverse where characters sometimes are in a empty void, less objects and less time rendering.

One savvy businessman wanted to bring Coffee to Japan. He was told he was a fool, they were tea drinkers for centuries, they would never like coffee.
So he started as a manufacturer of coffee candy. He got kids trying the new flavor for the first time, not everyone liked it, but enough did. Those kids grew up knowing what coffee is and wanting more.
Recently, Japan opened the largest Starbucks in the world.

You can’t expect the audience to just magically demand what they’re missing. The Coca-Cola Classic vs New Coke fiasco is another such learning moment. People don’t know what they have until it’s gone.
Make a banger movie that really tries and you will beat your unprepared competition for talent overnight.

In the case of something like Captain Yajima, it's great, because it's one dude going against his limitations to faithfully recreate stop motion to the tiniest detail all alone on a budget of completely free, it's one man's homage to a medium

In the case of Peanuts 2015, it's good because they heavily altered the principles of 3D animation to fit the simplistic nature of the original comic, and the limited FPS works well with the flat layouts and faux 2D models to create a consistent look, though just a 2D movie would've been better and more appropriate

In the case of Sonyslop it's shit, because they are 100M+ productions that are artificially slashing their FPS in movies that otherwise look like regular Disney movies with a filter which creates a jarring visual result, all to try to appropriate the artistic credibility and prestige of 2D animation and stop motion for free, without actually going through the effort of making a stop motion movie (which they totally could if they wanted to)

It's dishonest and looks bad

Proof?

Okay, then why did you only include those specific films as examples?

Gotta stop somewhere

If it’s not detail, or framecount, what is it?

see >And more importantly what is it not?
If you define something by what it is, you don't need to define it through what it isn't

I still hold that if Tangled was 2D and Princess and the Frog was 3D we’d be having a different conversation.
Same goes for Frozen.

Aw, you were doing good. Restating your unclarified definition is circular argumentation. You chose those movies for a reason, what properties do they have that others don’t? You including Samurai Jack means it’s actually pretty broad, which I agree with, but then what are you saying?

Source: Dude Trust Me

That’s just exaggeration which can be used by any form of animation, hell, maybe even in live action if you know your way around after effects, see: Cyriak, David firth. It’s like saying King of the hill or Perfect blue should just be live action cause it’s not bouncing around.

Yajima is great because of limitations

So, as a hypothetical, let’s say Sony produced Yajima, the result. Would that then make it bad/dishonest?
There are two parallel universes, one in which Captain Yajima comes from where it does in our reality, and another where the exact same result comes from Sony. Do you choose one as good and the other is bad? Or are they both good?

*I meant photography and effects when referring to David firth

Yes the Yajima produced by one guy is a wonder, the Yajima produced by Sony is dishonest and not impressive

I literally answered your every question and now you're inventing some idea of an "unclarified definition" because you have no retort

Interesting, so to you aesthetic value isn’t derived from the object being observed but from external factors.
How would you react if you were presented Yajima without context in a laboratory experiment, would you be unable to determine how beautiful it is?

How would you react if an animation you liked was revealed to be generated by AI?

No, you didn’t. You were being probed for clarification and retreated back to what was being probed.

grotesque ass image

>Interesting, so to you aesthetic value isn’t derived from the object being observed but from external factors.

Not aesthetic value, just value

Having no author is fundamentally different. I suppose I would still find it beautiful as an object, but I wonder if I would call that object art.
Now, will you answer the question? Is aesthetic worth only derived through struggle? Or can intentionality play a role?

Now, will you answer the question? Is aesthetic worth only derived through struggle?

Pretty much, things you can achieve effortlessly don't have value by default, and cutting the FPS in half is effortless and dishonest compared to actually making stop motion animation by hand

An even bolder statement. I specify aesthetics because that’s the subject of discussion.
So pain in production is what gives something aesthetic worth to you? Something can’t be beautiful or a valid aesthetic choice if it’s made purely optionally?

Okay, so you're clinically retarded. Never post again.

Well, this is where we’ve found the core of our disagreement. I appreciate elective aesthetics and you do not. I wonder where your mindset leads… frame by frame in blood is more valuable? Maybe.

So pain in production is what gives something aesthetic worth to you? Something can’t be beautiful or a valid aesthetic choice if it’s made purely optionally?

High skill cutting edge art is indeed more valid than lazy or subversive art

AI media is full of elective aesthetics

Can you be cutting edge by being abstract?
Can you be skilled in your abstraction?

Sure, rendering at half the framerate because you want stolen valor isn't it though

But not all elective aesthetics are without an author.
I also disagree in principle that abstractions in the past are purely a result of limitation. Was the medieval tapestry intention for Sleeping Beauty’s aesthetics a choice made due to production realities? Could they have not gone for higher detail or fidelity if they wanted?

Stolen valor

I don’t get this part. Do they claim to be working in another medium? Normalfags don’t even know this stuff at all. People who do know this stuff are either like you and don’t like it or think it looks cool. I don’t see the stolen valor here.

Do they claim to be working in another medium?

They don't have a reason to reduce the framerate like Peanuts, and it was a conscious choice anyway that didn't have to be made, I see no other possible purpose than fooling audiences into thinking the movies have the artistic credibility and prestige of 2D/stop motion animation, just like Victoria Beckham wanted the reputation of being working class

They don't have a reason to reduce the framerate

Aesthetic purposes. They liked it, and it paid off, many people gravitated towards the style.

it was a conscious choice anyway that didn't have to be made

That’s art in a nutshell, many worthwhile things are not necessities, but going above and beyond necessity.

than fooling audiences into thinking the movies have the artistic credibility and prestige

I don’t think anybody with a lack of knowledge is thinking about these things, nor do I think anybody with the knowledge of these things were “fooled”. They simply think it looks cool. I for one am happy that 3D is taking from 2D because 3D has been stagnant fidelity autism for a while and could learn a lot from what makes 2D good.

Kinda getting sick of that style of animation

More sick than Disney/Pixar’s template?

Aesthetic purposes.

Taken from media that have those limitations, and artificially imposed in a medium that doesn't, to create a false sense of merit

That’s art in a nutshell, many worthwhile things are not necessities, but going above and beyond necessity.

The point is that they made their animation look worse for no reason

I don’t think anybody with a lack of knowledge is thinking about these things

They don't have to actively think about them, they can be subconscious as well

nor do I think anybody with the knowledge of these things were “fooled”

They apparently were since people think the animation in these movies is somehow more merited for having half the framerate of previous animated movies

I for one am happy that 3D is taking from 2D because 3D has been stagnant fidelity autism

I for one am not happy 3D was given a new lease on life by stealing from 2D instead of dying and bringing us closer to an actual 2D revival

The audience gravitating towards 2D aesthetics is a good thing, actually. Shows demand.

It has never worked that way, once

"buy X, it's the only way we can make Y!"

buy X

they keep making X because "it sells"

they never make Y

It looks like fucking shit.
Sadly real.
I have a friend who's deep into that stuff. He showed me this one called Eastern Mind and it's just a mix of weird and atmospheric music. You'd have to watch to understand because I'm not able to really describe it. This is a promo btw. youtu.be/vYnjGhuljM8

It's fucking Peanuts. You can slap Snoopy onto any shitty thing and people will mindlessly gobble it up while claiming that it's sincere and cute. At least Garfield doesn't try to claim it's anything other than a means to make money.

false sense of merit

But the merit is coming from your own brain. Aesthetics are enjoyable or not regardless of limitations.

they made their animation look worse

In your opinion, some people think that looks good. Your issue is you think this is a look that IS bad and needs to be excused by limitation. Others disagree with both assertions, it doesn’t need to be apologized for, it looks good in old stuff and new stuff.

they can be subconscious as well

This is a trust me bro.

the animation in these movies is somehow more merited

They’re merited for being bold and different, and cool, not for being hard.

I for one am not happy 3D was given a new lease on life by stealing from 2D instead of dying and bringing us closer to an actual 2D revival

Ah this feels like the actual core of your beliefs. Underneath it all, you prefer 2D so you feel, in a metagame sense, that this is bad for 2D. I disagree. This shows the value in 2D and shows that the audiences value it too. Take it up with the studios rather than the individual works that find success.

I love early 3D, it’s so dreamlike and it’s my favorite era. I’d be more than happy to see abstract 3D return.

Aesthetics are enjoyable or not regardless of limitations.

So the people who enjoyed Corridor's AI Spider-Verse video "because it looks just like the real thing" are completely valid? They enjoyed it

In your opinion, some people think that looks good.

Some people think AI art looks better than real art

Your issue is you think this is a look that IS bad and needs to be excused by limitation

Yes flaws need justifications

This is a trust me bro.

It's not, subconscious programming has been part of moviemaking for a long time, no one actively thinks "this heroic music and triumphant camera framing are making me consider this character a hero", they just see the character and think "whoa a hero"

They’re merited for being bold and different, and cool

They're not either though

that this is bad for 2D

It is bad for 2D, because they keep making these garish 3D movies with not a single 2D movie on the horizon

i have had yet to see 3D animation imitate the 4th or 1st dimension

how else are we supposed to describe the horrendous tumblr art style of faggotry

Eastern Mind is the same guy who made LSD dream emulator.
Yeah video games especially indie are having a low poly revival era right now. Low fidelity 3D is so cool.

NTA, I prefer “corporate minimalism”. The truth is they’ll attack any label you give it instead of having an honest conversation about it.

My favorite example of this is Rez.
youtube.com/watch?v=gZLHB5e90pU

Does it look better in motion?

Im not gonna watch KPop movie anon

The actual cancer coming from CG onto 2D isn’t 3D projects becoming more stylized. It comes from puppet rigging animation that is 2D emulation using CG rigs. That shit is what’s actually replacing 2D and trying to pass itself off as the real thing.

It's honestly wild seeing people ignore the fact Turning Red did this years ago simply because it's in vogue to hate on Pixar

Don't get me wrong I don't think either is notably impressive, but pretending it's some animation revolution simply because it's the Spider-Verse studio is showing hidden biases, and it kind of explains why those movies are so overhyped

This movie didn’t get the credit because it’s ugly and lame.

it’s ugly and lame.

So like every Sony Animation movie

The truth is that you numptys never wanted an " honest conversation about it", ya'll just wanna hate.

The zeitgeist disagrees, so Spider-Verse gets the credit.

That shit is what’s actually replacing 2D and trying to pass itself off as the real thing.

Yea, I noticed that in a few modern shows, it was REALLY noticeable in the last season of F is for Family since it looked so much worse than the previous few seasons.

Billions of flies can't be wrong

Hating it is honest, but sure I’ll agree there are retards who believe what I believe and argue my positions terribly. There’s nothing I can do about that.

It doesn’t matter if the flies are wrong, you live in fly society and that’s the shit the culture had decided smells good. Welcome to reality.

Shut up Birchy

Well I was just saying it's wild living in a fly society

Anon tell me one good thing you liked about this trailer? Don't tell me you like this lame ass shit too. The Kpop in it kinda sucks. Maybe if they got New Jeans or something people would care a LOT more.

…And making assumptions into fly psychology, most notably console warring instead of looking at the difference between the two things and understanding why one would appeal more than the other.

Yeah because one is capeshit (cool and hip) and the other is Pixar (old and lame!)

Closer! I don’t think Turning Red is a gold example of Pixar especially in the aesthetics department, whereas Spiderverse is well executed capeshit, especially aesthetically.

They both look like shit

Agreed.

Ripping off japs well would be better than what is usually done. Or ripping off our past well is also viable.
I don’t think so.

They were trying to turn this face into a meme for internet engagement.

I just like knowing their opinions are irrational and easily swayed and thus unimportant and dismissible

Someone interested in something you’re not isn’t irrational. Normalfags are not unimportant because they comprise more of the public than enthusiasts do.

Spider-verse released before Turning Red. Also Turning Red released on streaming, so even Pixar didn't have much faith in it's aesthetic or subject matter at the time, instead choosing to put all their eggs in the Lightyear basket. It's honesty no surprise people would praise the company that seemly took a bigger risk, than the one that didn't.

My interest comes from merit, their interest comes from nebulous things like the zeitgeist and fitting in, which means their opinion in any serious discussion is trivial

A Spider-Man movie is a bigger risk than a movie about periods? Which universe did you come from

It was released in streaming due to the pandemic

a movie about periods

Thinks for admitting you're incapable of even pretending to engage in good faith.

Things you don’t like can have merit. Things I don’t like can have merit.
Your taste is not an objective measuring stick of merit.