http://www.animatorisland.

com/why-2d-animation-should-be-abandoned-part-1/

Why Should 2D Animation Be Abandoned?

(Part 1)
by J.K. Riki | Jul 27, 2015

2D Animation is dead. You hear the phrase all the time, in spite of recent 2D releases, the
likes of which make it to the top of the Oscar short list. Whether its dead or not, today were
going to do something very different and look at reasons why 2D should be left in the past and
abandoned completely from here on out. What case can be made for that?

First of all, let me tell you why Im writing this editorial. 2D hand-drawn animation is one of my
lifes passions. I consider myself a passionate person, but I only have a few that make it to the
very top of the list, and animation (2D specifically) is right there.

Why, then, would I argue it should be abandoned?!

I came to the realization while working on an upcoming book Im publishing on creativity that in
order to get a full understanding of a certain topic or idea, you must consider all angles. If
people say 2D is dead then we must understand WHY. For that reason, lets go all-in and
consider reasons we as creators might completely walk away from a tradition that began more
than one hundred years ago. No hyperbole here, only actual, reasonable rationales. By
understanding these reasons, we better understand both 2D and 3D animation.

1. 3D Animation is Easier
Controversy on top of controversy! There are animators who will tell you that 3D animation is
most certainly NOT easier, and will argue that point until you slowly back out of the room and
run to the safety of your car. Stay for a moment and hear me out.

Animation is animation. It is not art style or even medium (2D, 3D, stop-motion, etc). In order
to get beautiful movement, you must apply the exact same principals in 3D that you would in
2D (or 1D or 4D or any other D youd like to consider). Because of this, no form of literal
animation is easier or more difficult. So we must turn our attention to PROCESS instead.

Lets say you have an animator who is a master of movement. Somehow, without any
experience animating (which is impossible, but this is Hypothetical Land) she has a grasp of the
principals of animation the likes of which would make Glen Keane envious. It would be a waste
to let her skill go unused, so its up to us to put her to work on an animated film.

In order for her to animate in 3D, she will need to learn a piece of animation software. It might
be Maya, or 3DS Max. Learning a new piece of software is hard, but manageable. With some
dedicated classes and a handy reference book sitting alongside, our Fantastic Animator can put
her existing animation knowledge (ie. movement, flow, timing, etc) into the 3D space and have
rigs dancing about on screen with the best of them. Another animator can also link their scene
next to hers and the character will transition perfectly, both artists using the same rig already
created.

In order for her to animate in 2D, however, she will need to learn draftsmanship (drawing) at a
masterful level. There are no reference books to check when you run into an issue with the
graph editor here, because there is no graph editor. While you can take classes, those classes
are merely a push in the direction towards a lifetime of practice. The skill required to keep a
character consistently drawn and on-model is astounding, and its a wonder any artist even
attempts such a ridiculous goal.

Dont take my word for it, go try.

Get some paper and do 100 drawings in a range of poses and try to keep the character who
you didnt design yourself, by the way looking identical in size and shape throughout. Its a
nightmare.

It is not that 3D animation is inherently easier than 2D, because again animation is animation.
It is the skill needed to bring animation to the screen that differs. One requires a moderate level
of comfort in a particular piece of software. The other demands a mastery of drawing that very
well might cause Leonardo DaVinci to set down his quill and toss his sketchbooks into the trash
bin.

The truth is there are fewer and fewer artists every day that can pull off the drawings needed to
make beautiful 2D animation. This is because animation is so much an apprentice/master style
craft. You NEED a more experienced animator to show you where things have gone awry, and
the fewer there are to do that in 2D, the fewer new 2D masters there will be in the future.
Certainly we can use digital tools to lessen the need for every frame to be drawn, as in limited-
style animation, but then we must ask ourselves if this is worth while. Because:

2. Computers are Superior to Humans

Weve already got a nice fire going, so lets throw another can of gas on it, shall we? The simple
fact is a computer is capable of a level of detail and perfection than no human hand is going to
come close to. Dont believe me? Try to pull this off by hand (click on link to see Frozen clip):

http://www.animatorisland.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/frozen.gif

One could argue Well, you just dont do those sorts of shots in 2D; you plan differently. Then
the question above remains: Why? Why limit yourself when the technology is right here at your
fingertips to pull off a shimmering, glistening, geometric ice castle being conjured up out of a
snowy mountain cliff? Why go backwards and do things that are more difficult and much more
limited due to the human element? Why not embrace the future instead of living in the past?

These are questions that need sat with and answered by every and all animators, whether your
focus in 2D, 3D, or another type entirely. We MUST ask Is this the best way? Would this story
be told better in 3D? Would the characters connect with the audience from screen to seat
better if it were live action? Do these beautifully rendered shots of sky-scapes and ocean waves
really push the purpose forward or should they truthfully stay on the cutting room floor, no
matter how pretty they are to watch?

Using technology for the sake of technology is just as fruitless as doing things the old way
because thats how theyve always been done. If the new way is superior, it is a fools errand to
grasp tradition for no reason other than nostalgia. As artists, we should know why we choose
the mediums we choose, and that choice should never be because some other artist used this
one time. Being inspired by our art ancestors is a wonderful thing. Comparing ourselves to
them, or worse trying to BE them, is the fastest way to failure. You are you, and they are they.

3. Computers are Superior to Humans (Subtlety)

I ran this What Makes 3D Better idea past the supremely skilled Tom Bancroft in the hopes of
getting his thoughts on the subject, being that hes one of the best 2D animators currently
living. (If you disagree, just go watch some Mushu scenes.) He was kind enough to share his
perspective on subtlety in animation.

From Tom:
One thing that I can concede that 3D (and the animators behind the machine, of course) can do
much better than 2D animation is subtlety. Extreme subtlety to be more accurate.

I animated some of the most subtle scenes of Disneys 2D modern ages most subtle film:
Pocahontas (like her thinking about her dead mother). I can attest that even with the best clean
up artists in the world working on those scenes, its incredibly hard to show a character barely
moving for an extended amount of time and make it look good on a large screen. And at Disney,
in the 2D days just like today, we wouldnt just hold a character drawing for any extended
amount of time because they would go dead and look like they were part of the background.
But in Computer animation? No problem. Barely moving something is easy and remains ever
solid. No wobbly lines- ever. And the best CG animators have taken great advantage of this
ability of the computer with even the first Toy Story having some really subtle moments of
acting. I have heard that many CG animators look at 2D animation as vaudevillian acting/
performances because to them they look very rudimentary and over-preformed. Theres SOME
truth to this since 2D animation acting works better with broader performances and we 2D
animators needed the drawing ability of a Glen Keane, Andreas Deja, James Baxter or Ruben
Aquino to pull off that kind of subtle control of your drawings.

Has the pendulum swung too far the other direction in CG animation? Yes, I think were seeing
that now. Ultra realistic animation performances have given way to CG animated films that can
feel like watching a live action film and, therefore, loosing the magic of what is at the heart of
animation: Believable characters that are imaginative and fantastic in some way.

(Big thanks to Tom for his insights, and be sure to check out his animation podcast with his
brother Tony at Taught By a Pro. )

Its also important to note his point of and the animators behind the machines. Obviously
contrary to what many non-artists think, the computer doesnt do all the work. When I say it
is superior to humans, I mean that as a tool it has a greater degree of accuracy. It allows an
animator to do things a pencil doesnt. As said before, animation is animation.

In Part 2 of this article we take a look at a few more reasons 2D should be dropped for good,
and then one single very compelling reason why the pain, effort, and life-long endeavor that is
hand-drawn animation deserves to stay out of a lonely grave and continue on until the end of
time.
 http://www.animatorisland.com/why-should-2d-animation-be-abandoned-part-2-plus-why-not/

Why Should 2D Animation be Abandoned?

(Plus Why Not)
(Part 2)

4. Changes are Much Faster

Say you have a scene in 3D and your director suddenly realizes that the whole thing might work
a lot better from a birds eye view than the worms eye currently in place. In 3D, no problem! A
quick adjustment of the completely flexible camera and no chairs are thrown or scripts tossed
across the room. In 2D, though? Better have a lot of chairs and scripts on hand, because there
are fits to be thrown and nervous breakdowns to be had.

Animate this scene in 3D and you can place the camera anywhere you want.
In 2D an animator would need to completely start from scratch with a blank page in order to do
something as simple as a slight camera adjustment. There is no rotate slightly around the
character to the left in 2D. What youre saying is reanimate this entire scene, please.
Because of the flexibility of the 3D world that exists in the computer, changes are much faster
and easier.

5. Moving Holds Are Not Torture in 3D

The more subtle the animation in 2D, as discussed last article, the more difficult things become.
This applies not only to subtle emotion and acting, but simply keeping characters feeling alive.
Doing tracebacks without near-perfect clean-up can ruin a scene. The inbetweens to a moving
hold that are mere millimeters apart are one of the most painful experiences of an
inbetweeners career. Theres no room for error, and as we said before, humans are far from
computers when it comes to technical detail.
Thanks to the modern marvel of technology, we can create a moving hold in 3D that lasts a full
hour with the same amount of work as one that lasts only 10 frames. Consider how many holds
are in an average film and the benefits add up to astounding levels.

6. 3D is More Real
We go outside of our little animation box for a moment for this one. While prepping this article,
I asked several people their thoughts on why, hypothetically, 3D is the only way to go for all
future animation. Some of these people were animators, and they literally asked me if I had
some sort of fever, or had lost my mind. Others were only animation enthusiasts. One,
however, is a personal friend who only ever watches animation if I invite him to the theater
with me.

Apart from his childhood, he has rarely ever made an effort to see an animated film on his own.
I ask if hes watched Frozen, and his response is no. How about Big Hero 6, or How to Train Your
Dragon 2? Nadda. It would be a waste of breath for me to inquire about The Tale of Princess
Kaguya. He did watch Hercules on Netflix many years back, because he enjoys Greek mythology
and old Disney films but he found he didnt enjoy the movie.

His response to my question of why 3D? was simply that 3D animation is more real. To him,
3D animation blurs the line between fantasy and reality and a childs daydream and all
other ages is theoretically 3D, so its like their fantasies come to life. His words, not mine.

Cant argue the reality aspect of this short film.

Ask any 2D animator and theyll tell you its compelling characters that create the sense of
real infinitely more than any technology, design, or model. The problem is, theaters are not
filled with animators. They are filled with average people who have little to no idea how
animation is made. And to at least one of them, 3D is more real.
It is what it is. Argue if you like, but this is from the mouth of the audience. (One of them,
anyway, and many others share the opinion.)

7. The Infrastructure is Already There

I ran the concept of this article past a number of people, as I mentioned. Charles Kenny of
AnimationAnomaly.com responded with an important point: Infrastructure. Traditional
animation, while having similar time pressures to CGI, doesnt have near the same amount of
capital tied up in infrastructure, Charles noted. If youre going to make the investment in a
render farm and dozens of PC workstations, you arent going to only use them now and again.

Likewise Samantha Youssef of Studio Technique and the upcoming book Movement and Form
adds to this idea of infrastructure and cost:

Ultimately I think that 3D is a more business effective medium and the industry is a business not
an art. Thats the bottom line. Artists work in the industry and create art within it but the
motivating decisions are based on money.

This is a tremendous point from the logistical side of things. As artists, we sometimes ignore
logistics. They exist, however. Studios are now set up to do huge 3D films much more than they
are to work in 2D. In fact, many years ago the big studios like Disney sold off their traditional
animation desks en masse. While one can certainly animate hand-drawn style on a Cintiq, the
physical systems in place are better suited to 3D these days.

As Charles said, no decision-making-suit is going to let millions of dollars of rendering machines

collect dust while their animators work with paper and pencil, and as Sam points out, our
industry is a business first and art second. If the tools for 3D are there and set up, why not
use them and leave the pencils in the closet?

2D is Dead, Long Live 2D

When I set out to write this article, I did so because I am such a fan of 2D Hand-drawn
Animation that I wanted to immerse myself in an alternate perspective, to see what it looked
like. I must admit, by the end of my research and writing I had nearly convinced myself that 2D
should be abandoned.

And yet, not quite.

You see, there is one reason that refuses to budge from the recesses of my mind on why 2D
should be continued. The reason is illogical compared to most of the information above. It
seems counter-intuitive, and irrational. Yet it is the most compelling of any that Ive come
across:

2D Animation is Human
I have watched and loved many 3D animated films. They have been compelling, and rich, with
visuals that left me in awe in some moments. One of my earliest memories of life regards a 3D
animated scene when Basil chases Rattigan through the whirring gears of the clock tower. Yet
in spite of all the joy it has brought me, I have never felt the soul of an animator in the same
way via computer than I have via pencil.

By giving some level of control to the machines, I truly believe we lose some level of soul in the
final product. There are animators who will disagree with me, saying it is merely a tool and the
humanity still shines through. This is a fair point, and I understand their perspective. Then there
are animators who will argue that the original 2D The Jungle Book and 101 Dalmatians were a
pinnacle of animation BECAUSE they showed the raw lines of the original animator, perfect
cleanup be darned.

101 Dalmatians is perfect because it doesnt try to be.

Humans are imperfect, and it is in my opinion THROUGH that imperfection that great art is
great. When a line compels you with the passion of the person who drew it, that is a moment
that cannot be achieved unless a human hand has created it. The rough edges, and some would
say mistakes, are exactly what makes 2D animation as compelling as it is to me. You see
beyond shape to soul. Beyond form to thought. Beyond films to the poetry of life.

Is this sappy? Yes. Because we are sappy. We are human. We feel and think and love and hate.
Removing that element, even by one stage as the perfection of a computer cleans up our
intention in a logical attempt to make it better, is my biggest reason against abandoning 2D.
Why I personally never will. So, at least as long as I continue to breathe, traditional hand-drawn
animation will not be dead or abandoned. It will live on and continue in its majestic
imperfection as long as there are humans who so dearly love it. Imperfect, passionate humans.

In the end 3D has its place, and 2D does at well. Neither is a suitable replacement for the other,
and all the animators who chimed in for this editorial would no doubt agree.

Final Thoughts
To conclude, we need to have discussions.

We need to think deeply about what we do. We have to keep dialogue open or we stagnate and
never learn anything. The whole point of this is to THINK a little more. Ask Why SHOULD 2D be
abandoned? and answer truthfully, not defensively. Give real reasons why it should, then
make decisions once you have those answers, and others. Not hide from questions like that and
refuse to ever look any deeper, you know?

If we dont know why 2D animation SHOULD be abandoned, and also why it should not (which
is a different article plenty of people have written) then we cant make a wise choice going
forward as artists, because were not being open to all angles. The reason I wrote this post is
because I myself wasnt being open to all angles, so I wanted to see the honest reasons for 3D
animation vs 2D animation.

Big thanks to Tom Bancroft, Charles Kenny, and Samantha Youssef for helping me think through
this topic! I appreciate their willingness to set aside their own love of traditional animation and
really consider all angles for the sake of open, honest discussion.