8 ms·

The hand-drawn hits that Hollywood isn't making

103 points by gyomu 1y ago

mcphage 1y ago
> But Hollywood is a strange business. Certain decisions get made based on the buzzwords or slogans going around the corporate offices that day. If it sounds good, and it appears to help the bottom line, even a myth can become common sense. That's not strange at all. It's not rational, exactly, but it's business as usual.
- mrweasel 1y ago
  Movies always part business, and part art, but I think that for Hollywood studios the business part has grown, and the art bit has been pushed aside. Hollywood doesn't really do small movies, be it hand drawn or not. The article mentions that Nobody is done at a $10 million budget, I don't think that's really interesting for corporate Hollywood. Sure if it becomes massively successful, it's great, if not it was a lot of work for very little or no profit. That's fine for smaller studios, but if you expect all your movies to gross $1 billion, then trying to do it with a $10 million budget seems unrealistic. The smaller studios and independent movie makers can have their little project, and if they happen to make something good, Hollywood can just buy them and have them make a squeal at 10x the budget and milk the fans.
  - throwup238 1y ago
    > Hollywood doesn't really do small movies, be it hand drawn or not. The article mentions that Nobody is done at a $10 million budget, I don't think that's really interesting for corporate Hollywood. Sure if it becomes massively successful, it's great, if not it was a lot of work for very little or no profit. That's fine for smaller studios, but if you expect all your movies to gross $1 billion, then trying to do it with a $10 million budget seems unrealistic. There’s also the issue of Hollywood accounting. The people and studios funding the movies don’t see an all or nothing P&L because they own the companies actually producing the film (that’s how the zero net profit accounting is legally implemented in the industry). An EP like Spielberg putting down $10 million might see $8 million of that back before the film even releases because the project will use their studio for VFX or to shoot part of the movie. That leaves the costs that are spent outside the industry like advertising and marketing. If you have to spend $100 million on marketing anyway, it just doesn’t make sense to worry about production losses on a $10 million vs $100 million movie.
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      Hollywood accounting refers to businesses screwing each other out of compensation with loosely defined terms in business contracts. For the purposes of reporting financial figures to the SEC or calculating tax liabilities, the businesses still have to follow GAAP and other property methods of accounting. If a business like Disney or Sony contracts with Spielberg, they aren't going to be fooled by him contracting out to his other businesses, they are going to know that is part of the terms. And surely, by this point, all the actors and other contractors are sophisticated enough to know the game also. Even the wikipedia page for Hollywood accounting cites actors telling everyone to only settle for percentage of gross. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
      - throwup238 1y ago
        Second sentence of that Wikipedia page: > Expenditures can be inflated to reduce or eliminate the reported profit of the project, thereby reducing the amount which the corporation must pay in _taxes_ and royalties or other profit-sharing agreements, as these are based on net profit. First and foremost it’s a tax dodge because nobody falls for points net anymore unless they’re brand new to the industry and people dropping millions to finance a movie are rarely that uninformed. But that’s the why. I’m describing the how: Hollywood accounting is GAAP accounting where the financiers direct a significant fraction of the capital towards businesses they have an ownership stake in. They have both control over the client and how much the vendor charges, driving profit in the topline organization to zero and sending it downstream. The people/studios financing the films are okay with it because they own the downstream vendors. Neither the studios nor Spielberg are under any illusions about how this works - they structure it that way on purpose. They can’t just zero out their profit and say too bad to the taxman and all the contracts on net profit. No judge would let that slide if it came to a lawsuit (and it frequently does). None of this is a mystery to anyone who has worked on the financial side of the industry but because of how that money moves around within a production, it creates economic incentives that favor expensive productions rather than smaller budget ones, at least within Hollywood.
        1y ago
  - jonhohle 1y ago
    It’s cyclical. People will stop seeing movies because they’re repetitive and dull. Who really wants to see the avengers again? Then some unexpected hit will pop up out of nowhere and make a ton of money and studios will fund all kinds of off the wall things trying to create a new success formula. Along the way we’ll get a lot of fun movies again, but eventually they’ll figure out what is getting people into theaters and beat that concept until it’s dead. Repeat.
  - MangoToupe 1y ago
    Ironically, continuing to produce movies that are not worth seeing will ensure they'll shrink until we're back to doing small movies.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- rwmj 1y ago
  The quote applies equally to the software industry.
  - cosmic_cheese 1y ago
    At least in software there’s corners of the industry where cooler minds prevail and proven methods don’t get binned because they’re not compliant with whatever happens to be getting hyped up that month.
    - bigstrat2003 1y ago
      That's true, but the same applies to movies as well. Indie films exist, and for good or bad they have a lot more soul than the Hollywood blockbusters. The big name Hollywood stuff is the movie equivalent of AAA games (which also suck these days, for the most part).
cosmic_cheese 1y ago
The collapse of American 2D animation is so sad. 3D animation has its place and charms too, I’m not knocking it, but 2D animation has a certain magic that’s incredibly difficult to replicate in 3D. It’s a beautiful art form that deserves better. One worry of mine is that it won’t make a comeback before the masters who worked at Disney, WB, Cartoon Network, etc all pass away and all of that knowledge and expertise will be lost.
- footlose_3815 1y ago
  *Hand-drawn 2D animation. There's tons of 2D animation out there right now, and I hate it all from "A little bit" to "It's unbearable to look at". Animation rigging, squeezing and bouncing every part of the character to convince the viewer it's alive, but all it's doing is calling computer routines to wobble each part, instead of actually animating the damn character. Everything is shortcuts now. Recently, I started re-watching Dexter's lab. It's great. No CGI at all, no computer-assisted calarts. Trying to watch anything modern from the same creator, everything is just unbearable to look at. Everything looks like disjointed parts, and screams low-effort. All the flash animators of the 2000s grew up, and they're now running things. And everything just looks like wobbly flash. There's some shows that did this modern animation style well though. But not many. So I come to the same conclusion, repetitive low-effort stuff repels people.
  - jonhohle 1y ago
    > So I come to the same conclusion, repetitive low-effort stuff repels people. That’s really it. The medium is just a medium and not why people show up. Anyone who says this method or that method are superior are missing the point. Humans connect with characters and stories, not with meshes or acetate sheets. Oral, written, photographed, painted, sung, performed, filmed, drawn, animated - all these are in service to the message being communicated. The technique might get immediate attention, but substance is what makes a classic.
    - the_af 1y ago
      > The medium is just a medium and not why people show up. I sort of disagree with this. Sometimes the medium is the message. Or part of the message. Like how LAIKA studios could have made Coraline or Kubo fully in CGI, or live action, but instead chose puppets (for the most part). It matters that these are puppets and not CGI, anime-style drawings or live action people. It matters to them and it matters to me. Not saying story doesn't matter, but in movies it's sometimes overrated. You can have a gorgeous movie with barely any plot, and it can be engaging.
hylaride 1y ago
TL;DR is that good storytelling (via plot and character development) is what matters. Pixar was successful because they mastered that via a culture that wanted to make the best of a new technology for movies. It’s the same for Studio Ghibli with traditional animation. The issue with “Hollywood” (and American business in general) is that accountants seem to eventually take over and they don’t see the forest for the trees.
- the_af 1y ago
  Good storytelling matters a lot, but it's not the only thing that matters. The visuals and the medium matter as well. The same story told as 3D vs 2D animation, or in photorealistic vs stylized fashion, or in live action, or color vs black & white, is not the same. In some works of art, the story doesn't even matter.
- DSMan195276 1y ago
  IMO the article is being a little unfair to being highly misleading by only talking about box-office numbers, they're a much more complicated discussion than the article treats them (especially so since it includes a number of pandemic years). Additionally it's ignoring the reason _why_ CG is so popular and there's so many flops - you can make then a lot quicker than hand-drawn animation. Tons of hugely successful CG movies came out in the past few years that are not mentioned in the article (Inside Out 2, Frozen 2, Mario movie, Moana 2, Spider-man, etc.) - all of those movies had a higher box-office gross than every hand-drawn animated movie ever except for the Lion King in '94. I'm not saying they're _better_, but rather that box office numbers aren't a great reason to argue for hand-drawn animation, I don't think Disney and other companies are very concerned about the flops when the successes rake in so much money.
mallowdram 1y ago
The brain is 2-D and 3-D is imposed on it from our technology. Hochberg called this 3-D embedded in 2-D pictorialization and it's inherently more fun than the sterility of enforced, computed 3-D. CGI and 3-D were simply off-ramps to nowhere. "Human vision is fundamentally a two-dimensional process where the retinas in our eyes capture flat, 2D images. The perception of three dimensions, or depth, is a complex mental construct, really an illusion, created by the brain using stereoscopic vision, which compares slight differences between the two 2D images from each eye, and other visual cues like shadows, motion parallax, and relative size."
mudaib 1y ago
Ok
phoenixhaber 1y ago
[dead]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
legitster 1y ago
I've noticed recently that a lot of the 3D movies have been doing more to steal the look and feel of hand-drawn animation. More smudging, better textures, variable frame rates, more clever character design, etc. Obviously the Spiderverse movies were a love letter to traditional animation, but even kids movies like the Bad Guys and the most recent Puss in Boots look amazing. It's no replacement for hand-drawn and animated movies. But on the other hand (pun semi-intended) our ability to draw by hand these movies will never go away, and we have the ability to make new ones anytime in the future that someone has the passion and energy to do it (commercial success be damned!). The important thing is that all of the tricks, shorthand, and other collective learnings of a century of animation has not gone unappreciated, and is being absorbed into the new medium. That's pretty neat!
- kjkjadksj 1y ago
  A lot of knowledge on the hand drawn animation process is actually lost. Studios like Disney and what not did not meticulously write down how this stuff was done. This wasn’t lab work, this was artists with near unilateral control over process with no documentation write up as that takes longer than just not doing that and racing to completion. Assuming the industry would never change and it would never need to be documented on a historical level, and when it did orders from on high preferred work is done in the new style with the new tooling not distribute labor to archiving an old process they aren’t doing anymore just for humanity’s sake. Sure they’d be happy to answer if you called one of these old animators up to explain the process but there is probably plenty of details they themselves forgot over retirement. Maybe the animators passed away already and that door is closed. Either way there is plenty that isn’t written down.
  - legitster 1y ago
    That might be true for the particular recording equipment that was used, or some of the old-school VFX tricks, but the drawing and animation techniques are preserved in the final product. And as evidenced by the long history of independent 2D animated movies put out by auteurs, it doesn't seem like there is any problem innovating new recording or movie making techniques.
mrbombastic 1y ago
“It’s the story stupid.” seems like a good mantra from hollywood execs to internalize. Toy Story, Shrek and their ilk were partially successful because of the new fresh medium but mostly successful because they told stories that resonated with people with well thought out and relatable characters. Of course not to say esthetics don’t play a part, but all secondary to story.
- the_af 1y ago
  I agree the story (sometimes [1]) matter, but for those of us who also appreciate the artistry, the medium also matters. The same story can be told in 3D or 2D, but it seems mainstream studios always pick 3D now. And I miss the 2D days. I love 2D. [1] Though there's something to be said about spectacle over substance. Not everything needs to have an actual story, sometimes the visuals are the story, and that's fine.
  - Doxin 1y ago
    I don't think the problem is 2D vs 3D. It's trying to put in as little effort (read: money) as possible. It's completely possible to make stunning 3d animation, but that takes effort hollywood largely isn't interested in putting in. Take Arcane for example. It's 3d animation but it's gorgeous. It's art. Studios switching to 3d are a symptom of not putting in enough effort, not the cause of it.
    - the_af 1y ago
      > It's completely possible to make stunning 3d animation I completely agree, but that wasn't my objection. My objection is that I miss 2D, which is seldom picked by major studios anymore, because I love 2D, not because I think all 3D is bad. Arcane indeed looks wonderful. As do the latest works by Sony animation, like Spiderverse or K-Pop Demon Hunters! > Studios switching to 3d are a symptom of not putting in enough effort, not the cause of it. What's interesting is that, as mentioned by TFA -- based on interviews by Pixar employees, former and current -- 3D can be more expensive in terms of time and effort than 2D. This surprised me, I always thought 3D was picked because it was easier to work with, but Pixar employees argue otherwise. So I guess it's only badly done 3D that's easier? Like, my daughter was watching Disney's "The Adventures of Puss in Boots" (2015. A show, not a movie) and holy crap was it bad -- terrible models, terrible animation, terrible everything. Or something Skylander... Skylander Academy? Awful, minimum effort, cheaply done. I wonder if these things wouldn't look better in 2D. Or maybe they'd be just as crap.
Der_Einzige 1y ago
Ctrl-F "Don Bluth" 0 Hits. Opinion discarded.
- egypturnash 1y ago
  Bluth's last feature was Titan A.E., in 2000. He's 87 years old. The Dragon's Lair feature he tried to Kickstart in 2015 was cancelled at around half its goal. He was an important figure in the 80s and 90s feature animation world but I don't think he's really relevant to a discussion of current feature 2D productions.
  - the_af 1y ago
    Agreed, and also: while I liked Titan A.E., it wasn't exactly a masterpiece either. Even visually it seemed hit or miss to me.
ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
I can tell you that the hand-drawn Looney Tunes and Tom & Jerry, from the 1940s, still beat the crap out of the current 3D-rendered ones.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
akalapappa 1y ago
[flagged]
- delusional 1y ago
  In which universe is Disney's alladin an "homage" to Arab culture? It's a western stereotype of a different culture. Not, as you allude to, OF a different culture.
  - akalapappa 1y ago
    In the universe where you and I can both easily identify the film as rooted in Arab culture. The same thing applies to eastern animes as well - Vinland saga is about Vikings, but it’s obviously an eastern interpretation of them.
    - freejazz 1y ago
      It's obviously not rooted in Arab culture at all. I can imagine this being confusing to someone whose experience with Arabic culture consists entirely of having seen Aladdin, however.
    - krapp 1y ago
      >Vinland saga is about Vikings, but it’s obviously an eastern interpretation of them. Vinland Saga, Frieren and other anime often put a lot more effort into cultural and historical authenticity than Disney ever has. That's due to those anime being based on manga where the historical setting is often the hyperfixation of the mangaka (obviously there are exceptions, see the "nuns are mikos" trope.) Disney, meanwhile, only ever shits out racist minstrel stereotypes that appeal to white people because that's the fastest way to make a buck.
- the_af 1y ago
  > the root of it is multiculturalism/diversity isn’t appealing Could you elaborate on what you mean with this? I cannot even tell if I agree or disagree with you. What is "multiculturalism/diversity" to you?
- 1y ago
ausbah 1y ago
not being fair to 3d artists when i say this but the loss of american ability to produce high quality animated movies feels like it plays into our inability to build maglev trains or non-highway transit
moralestapia 1y ago
If you're still following Hollywood (hand rubbing sounds) in 2025 I ... I don't know what to say. I haven't watched any of that trash in about 10 years and I don't feel like I missed anything. All other filmmaking studios outside of Hollywood (hand rubbing sounds) are putting out great pieces, many of them consistently.
- m348e912 1y ago
  >All other filmmaking studios outside of Hollywood Such as?
  - moralestapia 1y ago
    Very low hanging fruit are Chuzu, Ghibli. Folivari is another good one. There's plenty of them all around the world.
    - m348e912 1y ago
      Your examples are basically foreign language studios or anime I guess you could go with Angel studios as an example, but not really.
      - moralestapia 1y ago
        Yes, and?
        m348e912 1y ago
        I speak English and don't watch anime
- eatsyourtacos 1y ago
  Can we get more hand rubbing sounds please?
  - moralestapia 1y ago
kylehotchkiss 1y ago
It's OK, we'll sh*t out 5 more sequels to Shrek with a few celeb cameos and maybe another 20 fast n furious' and the hollywood economy will be just fine.
- rkuykendall-com 1y ago
  Not a great example. The 5th (and most recent) Shrek movie has the highest RT of the franchise and is largely considered a masterpiece.
Pxtl 1y ago
As much as artists see generative AI as a goddamned abomination for a variety of good reasons, classical animation is a place where it can do a lot, such as inbetweening or providing alternative backgrounds to an existing scene. Imho the big failure of AI for real artists (besides IP rights concerns and the fact that it automates art instead of tedium) is mostly a UI one right now. The first studio to figure a good workflow for doing inbetweening using AI or the ability to feed character sheet and storyboards to get back rough keyframes will have a total game changer.
omoikane 1y ago
I think the author meant "mostly 2D animation" when they say "hand-drawn", in contrast to the fully 3D rendered movies such as Toy Story. They mentioned Suzume as a hand-drawn movie, even though it was a mix of 2D animation and 3D CG. https://area.autodesk.jp/case/animation/suzume-no-tojimari/ https://area.autodesk.jp/case/animation/suzume-no-tojimari/
schlauerfox 1y ago
There is a thriving cult following of 2d animation on Youtube, but like many things this has a fractured audience, no longer a unified pop culture. Sparklehorse has Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss. Glitch Productions has The Amazing Digital Circus which is retro-3d, but seems to also be producing the former Disney Owl House creator to make Knights of Guinevere.
internet_points 1y ago
Huh i haven't heard of any of these. Which ones are worth watching?
nitwit005 1y ago
> There’s no doubt that Sinbad, Home on the Range and other projects did poorly in theaters during the ‘00s — or that CG films (even some that critics panned) did well. The numbers tell the tale. If even the poorly reviewed CG films do well, of course the executives only funded that. People, unsurprisingly, prefer a guarantee of making money to a chance of making money. Focusing on theatrical releases creates a bit of a false impression. There are clearly still cartoons in production, it's just that it's intended for TV or streaming. I suppose Spongebob Squarepants getting a 15th season isn't very romantic, but I'm sure the artists working on it appreciate the work.
maxglute 1y ago
Only a matter of time before talented keyframe artists can get AI to slop the inbetweens into nice vector formats and build out an efficient workflow. I feel like the floor for hybrid traditional animation is going to get dramatically lower than 3D pipeline.
- cjenkins 1y ago
  I agree. Super excited to see what people are going to be able to make as the number of people/resources needed per piece of work keeps going down. Are we about to hit a printing press/word processor moment for TV/film? Going to be wild to see a feature level piece of media with one author/credit. WAN 2.2 FFLF2V (first-frame last-frame to video) could get you close to the tweening between key-frames today.
dd_xplore 1y ago
Nothing beats the masterpiece: Akira
blacksmith_tb 1y ago
Aw, no mention of Mars Express[1]? (not Hollywood, and not Japan either, but excellent) 1: https://www.polygon.com/24183308/mars-express-director-jeremie-perin-interview/ https://www.polygon.com/24183308/mars-express-director-jerem...
fourgreen 1y ago
I really advice you all watch some cartoon of the ex eastern block. For instance soviet ones: https://youtu.be/l132u2nIpkI https://youtu.be/l132u2nIpkI https://youtu.be/o9GBZvI-U6o https://youtu.be/o9GBZvI-U6o Or Polish ones: https://youtu.be/6O4sc7Gn0o8 https://youtu.be/6O4sc7Gn0o8 https://youtu.be/wq8wfOp0PSM https://youtu.be/wq8wfOp0PSM Or Czech ones: https://youtu.be/sVBrRv8s2jQ https://youtu.be/sVBrRv8s2jQ https://youtu.be/vz5bw4EB0FQ https://youtu.be/vz5bw4EB0FQ https://youtu.be/FwhROGiaGkc https://youtu.be/FwhROGiaGkc
CHB0403085482 1y ago
Even Hollywood's 3DCG doesn't compare to China's Nezha (2019) & Nezha (2025). Problem is that Hollywood's animation is so expensive that it has to appeal to everyone while japan is ok with anime for niche markets like CITY and My Dress-up Darling.

103 points by gyomu 1y ago

> But Hollywood is a strange business. Certain decisions get made based on the buzzwords or slogans going around the corporate offices that day. If it sounds good, and it appears to help the bottom line, even a myth can become common sense. That's not strange at all. It's not rational, exactly, but it's business as usual.

mrweasel 1y ago
Movies always part business, and part art, but I think that for Hollywood studios the business part has grown, and the art bit has been pushed aside. Hollywood doesn't really do small movies, be it hand drawn or not. The article mentions that Nobody is done at a $10 million budget, I don't think that's really interesting for corporate Hollywood. Sure if it becomes massively successful, it's great, if not it was a lot of work for very little or no profit. That's fine for smaller studios, but if you expect all your movies to gross $1 billion, then trying to do it with a $10 million budget seems unrealistic. The smaller studios and independent movie makers can have their little project, and if they happen to make something good, Hollywood can just buy them and have them make a squeal at 10x the budget and milk the fans.
- throwup238 1y ago
  > Hollywood doesn't really do small movies, be it hand drawn or not. The article mentions that Nobody is done at a $10 million budget, I don't think that's really interesting for corporate Hollywood. Sure if it becomes massively successful, it's great, if not it was a lot of work for very little or no profit. That's fine for smaller studios, but if you expect all your movies to gross $1 billion, then trying to do it with a $10 million budget seems unrealistic. There’s also the issue of Hollywood accounting. The people and studios funding the movies don’t see an all or nothing P&L because they own the companies actually producing the film (that’s how the zero net profit accounting is legally implemented in the industry). An EP like Spielberg putting down $10 million might see $8 million of that back before the film even releases because the project will use their studio for VFX or to shoot part of the movie. That leaves the costs that are spent outside the industry like advertising and marketing. If you have to spend $100 million on marketing anyway, it just doesn’t make sense to worry about production losses on a $10 million vs $100 million movie.
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    Hollywood accounting refers to businesses screwing each other out of compensation with loosely defined terms in business contracts. For the purposes of reporting financial figures to the SEC or calculating tax liabilities, the businesses still have to follow GAAP and other property methods of accounting. If a business like Disney or Sony contracts with Spielberg, they aren't going to be fooled by him contracting out to his other businesses, they are going to know that is part of the terms. And surely, by this point, all the actors and other contractors are sophisticated enough to know the game also. Even the wikipedia page for Hollywood accounting cites actors telling everyone to only settle for percentage of gross. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
    - throwup238 1y ago
      Second sentence of that Wikipedia page: > Expenditures can be inflated to reduce or eliminate the reported profit of the project, thereby reducing the amount which the corporation must pay in _taxes_ and royalties or other profit-sharing agreements, as these are based on net profit. First and foremost it’s a tax dodge because nobody falls for points net anymore unless they’re brand new to the industry and people dropping millions to finance a movie are rarely that uninformed. But that’s the why. I’m describing the how: Hollywood accounting is GAAP accounting where the financiers direct a significant fraction of the capital towards businesses they have an ownership stake in. They have both control over the client and how much the vendor charges, driving profit in the topline organization to zero and sending it downstream. The people/studios financing the films are okay with it because they own the downstream vendors. Neither the studios nor Spielberg are under any illusions about how this works - they structure it that way on purpose. They can’t just zero out their profit and say too bad to the taxman and all the contracts on net profit. No judge would let that slide if it came to a lawsuit (and it frequently does). None of this is a mystery to anyone who has worked on the financial side of the industry but because of how that money moves around within a production, it creates economic incentives that favor expensive productions rather than smaller budget ones, at least within Hollywood.
      - 1y ago
- jonhohle 1y ago
  It’s cyclical. People will stop seeing movies because they’re repetitive and dull. Who really wants to see the avengers again? Then some unexpected hit will pop up out of nowhere and make a ton of money and studios will fund all kinds of off the wall things trying to create a new success formula. Along the way we’ll get a lot of fun movies again, but eventually they’ll figure out what is getting people into theaters and beat that concept until it’s dead. Repeat.
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  Ironically, continuing to produce movies that are not worth seeing will ensure they'll shrink until we're back to doing small movies.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
rwmj 1y ago
The quote applies equally to the software industry.
- cosmic_cheese 1y ago
  At least in software there’s corners of the industry where cooler minds prevail and proven methods don’t get binned because they’re not compliant with whatever happens to be getting hyped up that month.
  - bigstrat2003 1y ago
    That's true, but the same applies to movies as well. Indie films exist, and for good or bad they have a lot more soul than the Hollywood blockbusters. The big name Hollywood stuff is the movie equivalent of AAA games (which also suck these days, for the most part).

cosmic_cheese 1y ago

The collapse of American 2D animation is so sad. 3D animation has its place and charms too, I’m not knocking it, but 2D animation has a certain magic that’s incredibly difficult to replicate in 3D. It’s a beautiful art form that deserves better. One worry of mine is that it won’t make a comeback before the masters who worked at Disney, WB, Cartoon Network, etc all pass away and all of that knowledge and expertise will be lost.

footlose_3815 1y ago
*Hand-drawn 2D animation. There's tons of 2D animation out there right now, and I hate it all from "A little bit" to "It's unbearable to look at". Animation rigging, squeezing and bouncing every part of the character to convince the viewer it's alive, but all it's doing is calling computer routines to wobble each part, instead of actually animating the damn character. Everything is shortcuts now. Recently, I started re-watching Dexter's lab. It's great. No CGI at all, no computer-assisted calarts. Trying to watch anything modern from the same creator, everything is just unbearable to look at. Everything looks like disjointed parts, and screams low-effort. All the flash animators of the 2000s grew up, and they're now running things. And everything just looks like wobbly flash. There's some shows that did this modern animation style well though. But not many. So I come to the same conclusion, repetitive low-effort stuff repels people.
- jonhohle 1y ago
  > So I come to the same conclusion, repetitive low-effort stuff repels people. That’s really it. The medium is just a medium and not why people show up. Anyone who says this method or that method are superior are missing the point. Humans connect with characters and stories, not with meshes or acetate sheets. Oral, written, photographed, painted, sung, performed, filmed, drawn, animated - all these are in service to the message being communicated. The technique might get immediate attention, but substance is what makes a classic.
  - the_af 1y ago
    > The medium is just a medium and not why people show up. I sort of disagree with this. Sometimes the medium is the message. Or part of the message. Like how LAIKA studios could have made Coraline or Kubo fully in CGI, or live action, but instead chose puppets (for the most part). It matters that these are puppets and not CGI, anime-style drawings or live action people. It matters to them and it matters to me. Not saying story doesn't matter, but in movies it's sometimes overrated. You can have a gorgeous movie with barely any plot, and it can be engaging.

hylaride 1y ago

TL;DR is that good storytelling (via plot and character development) is what matters. Pixar was successful because they mastered that via a culture that wanted to make the best of a new technology for movies. It’s the same for Studio Ghibli with traditional animation. The issue with “Hollywood” (and American business in general) is that accountants seem to eventually take over and they don’t see the forest for the trees.

the_af 1y ago
Good storytelling matters a lot, but it's not the only thing that matters. The visuals and the medium matter as well. The same story told as 3D vs 2D animation, or in photorealistic vs stylized fashion, or in live action, or color vs black & white, is not the same. In some works of art, the story doesn't even matter.
DSMan195276 1y ago
IMO the article is being a little unfair to being highly misleading by only talking about box-office numbers, they're a much more complicated discussion than the article treats them (especially so since it includes a number of pandemic years). Additionally it's ignoring the reason _why_ CG is so popular and there's so many flops - you can make then a lot quicker than hand-drawn animation. Tons of hugely successful CG movies came out in the past few years that are not mentioned in the article (Inside Out 2, Frozen 2, Mario movie, Moana 2, Spider-man, etc.) - all of those movies had a higher box-office gross than every hand-drawn animated movie ever except for the Lion King in '94. I'm not saying they're _better_, but rather that box office numbers aren't a great reason to argue for hand-drawn animation, I don't think Disney and other companies are very concerned about the flops when the successes rake in so much money.

mallowdram 1y ago

The brain is 2-D and 3-D is imposed on it from our technology. Hochberg called this 3-D embedded in 2-D pictorialization and it's inherently more fun than the sterility of enforced, computed 3-D. CGI and 3-D were simply off-ramps to nowhere. "Human vision is fundamentally a two-dimensional process where the retinas in our eyes capture flat, 2D images. The perception of three dimensions, or depth, is a complex mental construct, really an illusion, created by the brain using stereoscopic vision, which compares slight differences between the two 2D images from each eye, and other visual cues like shadows, motion parallax, and relative size."

mudaib 1y ago

phoenixhaber 1y ago

[dead]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

legitster 1y ago

I've noticed recently that a lot of the 3D movies have been doing more to steal the look and feel of hand-drawn animation. More smudging, better textures, variable frame rates, more clever character design, etc. Obviously the Spiderverse movies were a love letter to traditional animation, but even kids movies like the Bad Guys and the most recent Puss in Boots look amazing. It's no replacement for hand-drawn and animated movies. But on the other hand (pun semi-intended) our ability to draw by hand these movies will never go away, and we have the ability to make new ones anytime in the future that someone has the passion and energy to do it (commercial success be damned!). The important thing is that all of the tricks, shorthand, and other collective learnings of a century of animation has not gone unappreciated, and is being absorbed into the new medium. That's pretty neat!

kjkjadksj 1y ago
A lot of knowledge on the hand drawn animation process is actually lost. Studios like Disney and what not did not meticulously write down how this stuff was done. This wasn’t lab work, this was artists with near unilateral control over process with no documentation write up as that takes longer than just not doing that and racing to completion. Assuming the industry would never change and it would never need to be documented on a historical level, and when it did orders from on high preferred work is done in the new style with the new tooling not distribute labor to archiving an old process they aren’t doing anymore just for humanity’s sake. Sure they’d be happy to answer if you called one of these old animators up to explain the process but there is probably plenty of details they themselves forgot over retirement. Maybe the animators passed away already and that door is closed. Either way there is plenty that isn’t written down.
- legitster 1y ago
  That might be true for the particular recording equipment that was used, or some of the old-school VFX tricks, but the drawing and animation techniques are preserved in the final product. And as evidenced by the long history of independent 2D animated movies put out by auteurs, it doesn't seem like there is any problem innovating new recording or movie making techniques.

mrbombastic 1y ago

“It’s the story stupid.” seems like a good mantra from hollywood execs to internalize. Toy Story, Shrek and their ilk were partially successful because of the new fresh medium but mostly successful because they told stories that resonated with people with well thought out and relatable characters. Of course not to say esthetics don’t play a part, but all secondary to story.

the_af 1y ago
I agree the story (sometimes [1]) matter, but for those of us who also appreciate the artistry, the medium also matters. The same story can be told in 3D or 2D, but it seems mainstream studios always pick 3D now. And I miss the 2D days. I love 2D. [1] Though there's something to be said about spectacle over substance. Not everything needs to have an actual story, sometimes the visuals are the story, and that's fine.
- Doxin 1y ago
  I don't think the problem is 2D vs 3D. It's trying to put in as little effort (read: money) as possible. It's completely possible to make stunning 3d animation, but that takes effort hollywood largely isn't interested in putting in. Take Arcane for example. It's 3d animation but it's gorgeous. It's art. Studios switching to 3d are a symptom of not putting in enough effort, not the cause of it.
  - the_af 1y ago
    > It's completely possible to make stunning 3d animation I completely agree, but that wasn't my objection. My objection is that I miss 2D, which is seldom picked by major studios anymore, because I love 2D, not because I think all 3D is bad. Arcane indeed looks wonderful. As do the latest works by Sony animation, like Spiderverse or K-Pop Demon Hunters! > Studios switching to 3d are a symptom of not putting in enough effort, not the cause of it. What's interesting is that, as mentioned by TFA -- based on interviews by Pixar employees, former and current -- 3D can be more expensive in terms of time and effort than 2D. This surprised me, I always thought 3D was picked because it was easier to work with, but Pixar employees argue otherwise. So I guess it's only badly done 3D that's easier? Like, my daughter was watching Disney's "The Adventures of Puss in Boots" (2015. A show, not a movie) and holy crap was it bad -- terrible models, terrible animation, terrible everything. Or something Skylander... Skylander Academy? Awful, minimum effort, cheaply done. I wonder if these things wouldn't look better in 2D. Or maybe they'd be just as crap.

Der_Einzige 1y ago

Ctrl-F "Don Bluth" 0 Hits. Opinion discarded.

egypturnash 1y ago
Bluth's last feature was Titan A.E., in 2000. He's 87 years old. The Dragon's Lair feature he tried to Kickstart in 2015 was cancelled at around half its goal. He was an important figure in the 80s and 90s feature animation world but I don't think he's really relevant to a discussion of current feature 2D productions.
- the_af 1y ago
  Agreed, and also: while I liked Titan A.E., it wasn't exactly a masterpiece either. Even visually it seemed hit or miss to me.

ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago

I can tell you that the hand-drawn Looney Tunes and Tom & Jerry, from the 1940s, still beat the crap out of the current 3D-rendered ones.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

akalapappa 1y ago

[flagged]

delusional 1y ago
In which universe is Disney's alladin an "homage" to Arab culture? It's a western stereotype of a different culture. Not, as you allude to, OF a different culture.
- akalapappa 1y ago
  In the universe where you and I can both easily identify the film as rooted in Arab culture. The same thing applies to eastern animes as well - Vinland saga is about Vikings, but it’s obviously an eastern interpretation of them.
  - freejazz 1y ago
    It's obviously not rooted in Arab culture at all. I can imagine this being confusing to someone whose experience with Arabic culture consists entirely of having seen Aladdin, however.
  - krapp 1y ago
    >Vinland saga is about Vikings, but it’s obviously an eastern interpretation of them. Vinland Saga, Frieren and other anime often put a lot more effort into cultural and historical authenticity than Disney ever has. That's due to those anime being based on manga where the historical setting is often the hyperfixation of the mangaka (obviously there are exceptions, see the "nuns are mikos" trope.) Disney, meanwhile, only ever shits out racist minstrel stereotypes that appeal to white people because that's the fastest way to make a buck.
the_af 1y ago
> the root of it is multiculturalism/diversity isn’t appealing Could you elaborate on what you mean with this? I cannot even tell if I agree or disagree with you. What is "multiculturalism/diversity" to you?
1y ago

ausbah 1y ago

not being fair to 3d artists when i say this but the loss of american ability to produce high quality animated movies feels like it plays into our inability to build maglev trains or non-highway transit

moralestapia 1y ago

If you're still following Hollywood (hand rubbing sounds) in 2025 I ... I don't know what to say. I haven't watched any of that trash in about 10 years and I don't feel like I missed anything. All other filmmaking studios outside of Hollywood (hand rubbing sounds) are putting out great pieces, many of them consistently.

m348e912 1y ago
>All other filmmaking studios outside of Hollywood Such as?
- moralestapia 1y ago
  Very low hanging fruit are Chuzu, Ghibli. Folivari is another good one. There's plenty of them all around the world.
  - m348e912 1y ago
    Your examples are basically foreign language studios or anime I guess you could go with Angel studios as an example, but not really.
    - moralestapia 1y ago
      Yes, and?
      - m348e912 1y ago
        I speak English and don't watch anime
eatsyourtacos 1y ago
Can we get more hand rubbing sounds please?
- moralestapia 1y ago

kylehotchkiss 1y ago

It's OK, we'll sh*t out 5 more sequels to Shrek with a few celeb cameos and maybe another 20 fast n furious' and the hollywood economy will be just fine.

rkuykendall-com 1y ago
Not a great example. The 5th (and most recent) Shrek movie has the highest RT of the franchise and is largely considered a masterpiece.

Pxtl 1y ago

As much as artists see generative AI as a goddamned abomination for a variety of good reasons, classical animation is a place where it can do a lot, such as inbetweening or providing alternative backgrounds to an existing scene. Imho the big failure of AI for real artists (besides IP rights concerns and the fact that it automates art instead of tedium) is mostly a UI one right now. The first studio to figure a good workflow for doing inbetweening using AI or the ability to feed character sheet and storyboards to get back rough keyframes will have a total game changer.

omoikane 1y ago

I think the author meant "mostly 2D animation" when they say "hand-drawn", in contrast to the fully 3D rendered movies such as Toy Story. They mentioned Suzume as a hand-drawn movie, even though it was a mix of 2D animation and 3D CG. https://area.autodesk.jp/case/animation/suzume-no-tojimari/ https://area.autodesk.jp/case/animation/suzume-no-tojimari/

schlauerfox 1y ago

There is a thriving cult following of 2d animation on Youtube, but like many things this has a fractured audience, no longer a unified pop culture. Sparklehorse has Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss. Glitch Productions has The Amazing Digital Circus which is retro-3d, but seems to also be producing the former Disney Owl House creator to make Knights of Guinevere.

internet_points 1y ago

Huh i haven't heard of any of these. Which ones are worth watching?

nitwit005 1y ago

> There’s no doubt that Sinbad, Home on the Range and other projects did poorly in theaters during the ‘00s — or that CG films (even some that critics panned) did well. The numbers tell the tale. If even the poorly reviewed CG films do well, of course the executives only funded that. People, unsurprisingly, prefer a guarantee of making money to a chance of making money. Focusing on theatrical releases creates a bit of a false impression. There are clearly still cartoons in production, it's just that it's intended for TV or streaming. I suppose Spongebob Squarepants getting a 15th season isn't very romantic, but I'm sure the artists working on it appreciate the work.

maxglute 1y ago

Only a matter of time before talented keyframe artists can get AI to slop the inbetweens into nice vector formats and build out an efficient workflow. I feel like the floor for hybrid traditional animation is going to get dramatically lower than 3D pipeline.

cjenkins 1y ago
I agree. Super excited to see what people are going to be able to make as the number of people/resources needed per piece of work keeps going down. Are we about to hit a printing press/word processor moment for TV/film? Going to be wild to see a feature level piece of media with one author/credit. WAN 2.2 FFLF2V (first-frame last-frame to video) could get you close to the tweening between key-frames today.

dd_xplore 1y ago

Nothing beats the masterpiece: Akira

blacksmith_tb 1y ago

Aw, no mention of Mars Express[1]? (not Hollywood, and not Japan either, but excellent) 1: https://www.polygon.com/24183308/mars-express-director-jeremie-perin-interview/ https://www.polygon.com/24183308/mars-express-director-jerem...

fourgreen 1y ago

I really advice you all watch some cartoon of the ex eastern block. For instance soviet ones: https://youtu.be/l132u2nIpkI https://youtu.be/l132u2nIpkI https://youtu.be/o9GBZvI-U6o https://youtu.be/o9GBZvI-U6o Or Polish ones: https://youtu.be/6O4sc7Gn0o8 https://youtu.be/6O4sc7Gn0o8 https://youtu.be/wq8wfOp0PSM https://youtu.be/wq8wfOp0PSM Or Czech ones: https://youtu.be/sVBrRv8s2jQ https://youtu.be/sVBrRv8s2jQ https://youtu.be/vz5bw4EB0FQ https://youtu.be/vz5bw4EB0FQ https://youtu.be/FwhROGiaGkc https://youtu.be/FwhROGiaGkc

CHB0403085482 1y ago

Even Hollywood's 3DCG doesn't compare to China's Nezha (2019) & Nezha (2025). Problem is that Hollywood's animation is so expensive that it has to appeal to everyone while japan is ok with anime for niche markets like CITY and My Dress-up Darling.