Search form

COMPUTER v.s. HAND-DRAWN ???

72 posts / 0 new
Last post
COMPUTER v.s. HAND-DRAWN ???

Hey Everyone!

I don't know if this is posted or not, but I've held on to this question for quite some time. I'd like to know your opinions on what's happening to the industry.
Now, computer animation has been quite the success, obviously, and I do admire it, but I'm tired of it.
I kind of missed the facts about coorporations like disney and Pixar and their direction with animation.

Is hand-drawn gone forever in the theatres? Is this the future of animation?

I know computer is more popular, but do you think hand-drawn could make a come-back? Is it possible ? and What do you think it would take to switch over to this form?

I know a lot of people out there grew up with hand-drawn and I'm sure there are some people out there who miss it. I just never hear it discussed. I wasn't always sure of what I wanted to do after college, but I eventually decided to try this field (when I finish college).
I'd like to make one of my favorite fields my major in this career. I'm not saying these CGI flicks are bad ideas. It's the idea of all these movies put in this form and the story lines that go with some of them.

Maybe I'm looking at it from too much of a mature perspective. Kids will fall into this form of animation. They're just kids, but what will the outcome be of all these future CGI movies.

So, all in all, what do you prefer? Computer or hand-drawn?

Spirits

When they started doing animation by hand it had already existed in the form of comics in newspapers ect. Animations from these were inevitable.

CG had to evolve without the benefit of countless hours of cartoonery. There's safe areas for CG and also dangerous ones best left to cel animators.

It stands to reason that going to the movies to see an hours long game trailer isn't going to help the 'Box office'. By the same coin, if I can see Bugs Bunny 5 days a week on TV, why see it at the theater.

I can't stand the fact that a lot of companies are taking the older characters and putting out to CG. Why not just develop the new characters and make us like those objects instead of this messed up party where the older characters show up and get dirt kicked onto their feets by the newer spirits.

Animation does not determine the quality of a film. This is what the companies dont understand. They saw that Pixar was a huge success and said "OH! WOW, 3D animation, thats how they did it, thats where they made their millions" Yes 3D animation made Pixar stand out, but it didnt make their films any better. It's the story. Pixar has good stories and good characters which is where their success lies. The same applies to Shrek.
Look at films like Shark Tale and Shrek 2, which were succesful at the box office, but flopped on DVD sales. Reasons for this being, Shark Tale was awful and i dunno, i liked Shrek 2 but obviously it didnt appeal to as many people. The Incredibles also made a loss on DVD sales. As much as i liked that film and as amazing as it was, it just wasnt Pixars best.
Now look at Wallace and Gromit. A huge success. This film was 10% CGI, if that. Corpse Bride was also success and Howls Moving Castle. Look at what made these films succesful, it wasnt their aniamtion, but their story and characters.

To me, The Incredibles was not only Pixar's best, but kind of legitimized 3D in general. It and Sin City (which uses exclusively 3D for backgrounds) are two of the best movies I've seen in years. Box office and DVD sales don't touch my opinion about the quality of a movie.

Corpse Bride was amazing technically, but the Tim Burton formula is getting to the point of filling in the blanks. I love most of the voice actors. I like the design pretty well (though Burton owes way too much to Edward Gorey to be called original.) But the story bates that age-old magic question, "So what?" Pretty bland stuff.

What I want to see is more creative hybrids between the two mediums. From what I can tell from the documentary, they did a lot of mingling of the techniques on Triplets of Bellville. I thought the water was too realistic, but otherwise loved the look of the film.

I have noticed a tendency for animators to become lazy when they get into computers, which is unfortunate. On the other hand, there seems to be a tendency for classical animators to make things as labor-intensive as possible. Drafting, for example, is such a mechanical process that NOT letting the computer do it is just inefficient.

I'm starting to learn Aftereffects, and the thing I'm liking the best is that you can use scanned drawings. Add to this the fact that you can print stuff out and put it on a light box, and you've already pretty much erased the boundary between computer and hand drawn. And Aftereffects is a pretty low end program.

i think hybrids work well tech wise because they will allow you the freedom to play with your camera and it wont take up as much time as it would have otherwise.

but in the end we need some good stories. i saw the Brad Pitt Sinbad? recently. very well made i thought. but not the most fun film.

DVD sales can be misleading, like books sales can be misleading. I am not sure it publishers still do this, but at one time the publishers would buy their own books to get the title high on the New York Best sellers list.

I think that "The Incredibles" is an alsome movie but the bad DVD sales might be because they published too many copys of it. There would be small mountains of that movie in every drug store and supermarket in the country.

I am sure that everyone who love a well told story bought a copy. Story is first, last, and always when it comes to entertainment.

Hey!, I haven't really read through this thread yet, so if this has already been said earlier, sorry.

I really, really want to like 3d animation. There's so much about it that's very nice, very appealing - but I just feel like one can't really do everything with it that one can do in a drawing. Like - I've seen Toy Story, the Shreks, peoples' animation demos, etc...and it just all seems kind of...puppet-show. I mean - look at what Kricfalusi does, what Avery did, what Chuck Jones and Clampett did - what's done subtley in Bluth films. So many things change in the way this-or-that part of a character is drawn in the course of an animation, or on the basis of an emotion or action or any kind of energy. Squash, shrink, stretch, swell, bulge, distort, crinkle, twist -- they're all there in the details of any quality drawn animation, but in a 3d animation I just don't see anything comparable, and in my mind that makes the emotional impact of the finished film suffer -- it just doesn't appeal in the details, it's like, as I said, watching puppets.
If there's actually some way to get that kind of subtlety -- or, moreover, the extreme changes, like in "takes" -- without, you know, requiring tons of from-bottom-to-top-new 3d models all along the way -- then 3d animation would appeal a lot more to me. I don't know whether one can do that or one can't - I just haven't seen it done yet, not in the films I've watched.

i think hybrids work well tech wise because they will allow you the freedom to play with your camera and it wont take up as much time as it would have otherwise.

but in the end we need some good stories. i saw the Brad Pitt Sinbad? recently. very well made i thought. but not the most fun film.

Now, THAT'S the argument. We need good stories.

And hybrids. Gas is expensive.

Follow @chaostoon on Twitter!

yeh i actually enjoyed sinbad too there skinny,especially the way eris's hair moved,and the 2d 3d mixture when she knocks out that gaurd (pretending to be sinbad)

and in tarzan,software like deep canvas can be used to make so much more great visuals,lets hope some good stories come soon.

This question has been posted so many times its probably a sticky...........somewhere....... and certainly is in the pages following this lead page.

Give the other pages in this forums look-see for answers to questions like this.

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

Is hand-drawn gone forever in the theatres?

I love when this topic pops up 'cause it's just so gosh-darned ridiculous.
It's like saying, "The sun has set! Will the sun never rise again?"

Curious George was hand-drawn and that just came out 2 months ago. The Simpsons movie (hand-drawn) is coming out next year.

I know computer is more popular, but do you think hand-drawn could make a come-back?

Stop-motion has made a strong comeback. Hand-drawn will as well. People just need to do something slightly original with it.

Maybe I'm looking at it from too much of a mature perspective.

Yes, that's the problem. You're too "mature."

So, all in all, what do you prefer? Computer or hand-drawn?

both

I also like stop-motion.

Why a sticky?

Hello.

Can't understand why this is a sticky thread...We have been through this one enough. I am tired of it.

It's all animation and it ALL takes drawing as a foundation.

Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Thanks.

It's a sticky so new members don't have to keep posting similar threads every few months Larry. Now if they want to add their two cents they can post it here instead of creating a whole new thread.

Aloha,
the Ape

...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

Like Larry said, it's all animation. CG, Traditional, Stopmotion, it doen't matter. It's all animation, just with a different medium. It's like asking which do you prefer to draw with, charcoal or conte crayon? What makes a good movie is not what it's animated with. What makes a good movie is a combination of a good story, compelling characters and good character acting. Does the story draw you in? Do you sympithize and/or relate to the characters? Is the acting so good that you forget you are watching a cartoon? All these things matter and make for a good movie be it CG, Traditional, Stopmotion, puppets, Muppets or live action.

Oh, and I prefer conte crayon. :D

Aloha,
the Ape

...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

Sorry to spoil the party

Yes and no.

2D is not dead and buried. Fine art never went, nor did calligraphy go after Steve Jobs brought in typography (why did Steve have to spoil the party every now and then?)

2D is not as good a career as earlier, since 3D has been tamed. It took time to tame the medium and there were the usual rubbishing of 3D phases. Finally Pixar (Steve Jobs again) could tame this medium and it is now going to be a medium of preference for story tellers.

It has taken away drudgery from animation where focus was shifting from storytelling to art. That shift of focus has been arrested. Now story telling is back in the centre of focus. Things change my dear friend and that is life!

We are very thankful to all these artists who have entertained us years on, and it is sad to see their area of influence shrink. I still love the old cartoons, I still love the old phones, I still love to walk, I still love the gramophone, I still want to wind my clock... dear dear.. life is moving so painfully unbiased

PS: This is NOT an RIP Note

http://www.3danimationtrainingstudio.com I still have not told my story! - Vineet Raj Kapoor

I'm there with you. If there was a good reason to put it in 3D maybe .... but .... other than money there really isn't. I loved the Incredibles , Toy Story 1 and 2 but I think that was just awesome film making and pretty original . Shrek 1 was ok, but 2 kind of bored me. Actually most CG bores me. It's hard for me to know whether I just love drawing or I am warped by it. Will 2D ever come back ? Well it hasn't gone away, it makes huge money on DVD or so I hear. Even as an artist I got sick of 2D because there was so much bad stuff. Films like Lilo and Stitch come along every once in a while to remind you how good it can be.

Oh, and I prefer conte crayon. :D

Will charcoal ever make a come-back?!

I was in the office supply store looking for pencils, but all they have is robo-pencil: part graphite, part machine, all pencil.

The Simpsons movie (hand-drawn) is coming out next year.

I heard that one is going to be animated by ex-Disney animators. They did the same thing with the Spongebob movie. I'm looking forward to it.

James :cool:

you need to create a sticky with this thread title and a message body that just reads
SHUT. UP.

and not allow replies
just to be mean :D

Animation: drawn vs computer

I am stuck on drawn animation. Nothing can replace it. I am working on a animated short, to be shot on 16mm; cels & paper.

Hey Everyone!

I don't know if this is posted or not, but I've held on to this question for quite some time. I'd like to know your opinions on what's happening to the industry.
Now, computer animation has been quite the success, obviously, and I do admire it, but I'm tired of it.
I kind of missed the facts about coorporations like disney and Pixar and their direction with animation.

Is hand-drawn gone forever in the theatres? Is this the future of animation?

I know computer is more popular, but do you think hand-drawn could make a come-back? Is it possible ? and What do you think it would take to switch over to this form?

I know a lot of people out there grew up with hand-drawn and I'm sure there are some people out there who miss it. I just never hear it discussed. I wasn't always sure of what I wanted to do after college, but I eventually decided to try this field (when I finish college).
I'd like to make one of my favorite fields my major in this career. I'm not saying these CGI flicks are bad ideas. It's the idea of all these movies put in this form and the story lines that go with some of them.

Maybe I'm looking at it from too much of a mature perspective. Kids will fall into this form of animation. They're just kids, but what will the outcome be of all these future CGI movies.

So, all in all, what do you prefer? Computer or hand-drawn?

Add to that...

3D Animations rarely if ever tend to cel shade. Ice age did well and seems to be getting good at extremes.

Squash, shrink, stretch, swell, bulge, distort, crinkle, twist -- they're all there in the details of any quality drawn animation, but in a 3d animation I just don't see anything comparable

This kind of thing is starting to show up in 3D. Two recent examples are Madagascar and Chicken Little, both of which applied a healty dose of 2D principles to their 3D environments.

It signals a maturing of the technique; an ability to go beyond what's necessary to get the image on the screen and get to what really makes the footage sing. Let's keep in mind too that the examples you cite (Jones, Clampett, Krickfalusi) are working in a relatively mature technique, and have the discoveries of those that came before at their disposal. Take a look at some 20's animation, and you'll see the primitive state that 2D evolved from.

Give it time; 3D will get there...

Yeah, you have to keep reminding people that 3D is still a very young medium, and has made great advances since the days of Pixar's Andre & Wally Bee and Tin Toy.
What did 2D look like when it was 20 years old (Bray, Van Beuren, Koko, Disney's Alice & Oswald, etc.)? It too was stiff and awkward like a lot of early 3D.

Yeah, you have to keep reminding people that 3D is still a very young medium, and has made great advances since the days of Pixar's Andre & Wally Bee and Tin Toy.
What did 2D look like when it was 20 years old (Bray, Van Beuren, Koko, Disney's Alice & Oswald, etc.)? It too was stiff and awkward like a lot of early 3D.

That's not an entirely balanced assessment. 3D, like 2D, has about 80-some years of 2D techniques to draw from in order to achieve their desired results. (Unfortunately, only Pixar seems to be the only studio smart enough to do this). However, 2D had very little to draw on back in the day. Their biggest influence was comic strips really. That's what makes the original 2D so amazing. Everyone at Disney, Fleischers, Pat Sullivan, and Termite Terrace were learning pretty much everything from scratch.

For this reason, 3D is given a little less quarter than 2D in leeway to develop. I'm not saying 3D is worse in any way, I'm just trying to put things in their proper perspective.

Order my book Jesus Needs Help on Amazon or download on Kindle.

You can also read the first 18 pages of my next book for free at this link: The Hap Hap Happy Happenstance of Fanny Punongtiti

Haredevil, the point I made is that the technology of 3D is only now getting to the point where it takes less than a herculean effort to apply some of the techniques of 2D animation. It isn't that early 3D practitioners didn't want to apply some of these techniques; it's that the technology at hand couldn't accomodate it. It took a significant effort just to get a picture out of a computer back in the day.

Whether it's lack of knowledge or lack of ability due to technological limits, the development arcs of 2D and 3D are surprisingly similar.

That's not an entirely balanced assessment.

All I did was state incontestable facts:[LIST]
[*]3D (CGI) is still a young medium.
[*]3D has made advances over the past few decades.
[*]Early 2D and 3D looked "stiff and awkward."[/LIST]I suppose that if I'd bashed 3D some more, my statements would have been more "balanced" by your account.

Haredevil, the point I made is that the technology of 3D is only now getting to the point where it takes less than a herculean effort to apply some of the techniques of 2D animation. It isn't that early 3D practitioners didn't want to apply some of these techniques; it's that the technology at hand couldn't accomodate it.

Bingo

Every new medium also requires time to find its unique styles and formulas, and adapt to popular culture.

Their biggest influence was comic strips really. That's what makes the original 2D so amazing.

Animation - as well as live action movies - borrowed some of the comic strips' characters and gags, but the two media (strips and toons) had very different narrative styles.
Early animation and live action comedies were more directly influenced by popular comedic theater. Movies were born and developed during Vaudville's heyday, and came to replace Vaudville.

Would you guys agree with this?
That:
It's easier for an audience to be entertained by 3d animation than it is by 2d animation,
but
it's easier for an audience to feel sincere, warm fondness for a 2d character than a 3d one?

I don't know what I think. I'm just wondering what you think.

I think you know what you think, or you wouldn't have asked. My personal opinion is a huge No on both accounts; I couldn't even begin to find a way to rationalize either of those ideas...

From what I've seen in other people, and been exposed to myself, people's reactions to animation seems rooted in WHY it's there 40x as much as HOW it's there, if you follow...

Everyone's so keen to make a charged argument about everything. ;)
Nevermind my saying anything. :rolleyes:

Yah, most people can make a logical connection between asking a question and receiving answers. Maybe that's best.

Yah, most people can make a logical connection between asking a question and receiving answers. Maybe that's best.

You mean asking a question and receiving heated opinions?

I browsed through this -sticky, is it?- and basically all you need to hear is this:

There are still poets. There are still sculptors. There will always be 2-d, and so long as there isn't a tremendous EMP blast, there'll always be 3-d. The RIGHT QUESTION is, will 2-D find a market again?

"Answer" as in response, as in reply.

The question was 'would you agree or not.' I myself would not agree, and apparently neither would Harvey. My opinion isn't fact, but it is a fact that I have that opinion.

If you ask someone what they think and don't expect opinions in return, I'm not quite sure why you asked. He didn't say "What's an x-sheet?" and hear a definition, he solicited feelings and is getting upset that they exist and are clear.

The RIGHT QUESTION is, will 2-D find a market again?

2D obviously has a market, so perhaps the question you mean to ask is, Will there ever be a market for bad 2D movies again, like We're Back! A Dinosaurs Story and The Swan Princess?

10 years ago, there was around 1 good (and 10 unwatchable) 2D movie(s) produced every year.
Today, there is still around 1 good 2D movie produced every year, so things really haven't changed that much for 2D. But these days - in addition to the 1 good 2D movie - there are also a few good 3D and stop-motion movies produced every year, so every animation lover (2D lovers, 3D lovers, stop-motion lovers) is a winner.

2D obviously has a market.[/I]

Scattered: Back off, man. I wasn't attacking you.

Harvey: If it's that obvious, please point out to me how the market for 2-d features has been steady and/or inclined in the last 5 years. Seems to me that 2-D's been in a slump for a while. I admit I don't have any numbers with me, but... One shoddy release a year is not "doing well,' in my book. "Brother Bear?" "On the Range?" Oh yeah, 2-d's doing great...:rolleyes:

I think you might be reading too much tone into things, there's nothing to back off from. :D

You quoted me and either misunderstood or were being contrary in how you reiterated my words, so I was just clarifying. I never speak correctly the first time around, my apologies if there was any perceived ill will.

Harvey: If it's that obvious, please point out to me how the market for 2-d features has been steady and/or inclined ...

You didn't specify 2D features before. You asked, "will 2-D find a market again?"[LIST]
[*] There are dozens of 2D shows currently in development for Fox, CN, Nick, etc. That's a market.
[*] Curious George made $60 million in the theaters. $60 million is a market.
[*] There are a number of 2D features headed for theatrical release. That's a market.[/LIST]Whether the market is growing or shrinking is a different matter.

One shoddy release a year is not "doing well,' in my book. "Brother Bear?" "On the Range?" Oh yeah, 2-d's doing great...:rolleyes:

What constitutes "doing well" is open to interpretation.

You seem to be suggesting that 2003 (Brother Bear) and 2004 (Home on the Range) were bad years for 2D animation, but those years also brought Piglet's Big Movie, Millenium Actress, The Triplets of Belleville, Teacher's Pet, and The Spongebob Movie, which were all very well-reviewed movies.

Now let's compare that to 10 years prior, or 1993 and 1994:
In 1993 we had My Neighbor Totoro. In 1994 we had The Lion King. That's two good 2D movies per two years 10 years ago compared to five good 2D movies per two years recently, or a 250% increase in quality 2D movies.

It's All Animation!

Hello,

The fact is, some suit or suits (marketer or business grad) somewhere decided that 3D was the answer to the woes of some failed 2D feature films.

They came to that conclusion because they did not want to point the finger at themselves for some really bad stories that they and other suits came up with ....they had already taken control of the films from the artists.

So 3D (CG) became the answer!

Studios like Pixar and Aardman let the artists make the films - not the suits.

I heard that when John Lassiter took over animation at Disney - he had a meeting fo everyone... he then asked anyone that didn't draw to leave the room...

Many of the 40 some V.P.'s at Feature Animation are now gone...:D

Now Disney is hiring back 2D animators to make good films made by artists!

We (animators and artists in the biz) are ALWAYS more invested in which technique is used to make films.

NORMAL FOLKS DO NOT CARE-as long as they are entertained. They don't really care whether a film is 2D or 3D or stop motion or cutouts.

Repeat after me....

"Artists are good for animation, suits are bad!!!!!!"

"Artists are good for animation, suits are bad!!!!!!"

"Artists are good for animation, suits are bad!!!!!!"

"Artists are good for animation, suits are bad!!!!!!"

"Artists are good for animation, suits are bad!!!!!!"

Got it?

Thanks.

Seems to me that it's a mistake to examine the media of animation more than the principles of good animation itself (irrelevant to 2D or 3D) and the concepts that lie behind good storytelling and good marketing.

The problem with 2D is that it's expensive and (unlike 3D) the elements that are created for it cannot be so easily reused and repurposed for additional materials which can bring additional profit to the IP franchise. Which is important to investors and the bean-counters who sign the checks.

Seems to me that it's a mistake to examine the media of animation more than the principles of good animation itself (irrelevant to 2D or 3D) and the concepts that lie behind good storytelling and good marketing.

The problem with 2D is that it's expensive and (unlike 3D) the elements that are created for it cannot be so easily reused and repurposed for additional materials which can bring additional profit to the IP franchise. Which is important to investors and the bean-counters who sign the checks.

2D isn't any more expensive than 3D--at least in the short term--the notions that it is are a myth.
The 3D rigging and modelling and environmental constructs often take more time than it would take in 2D layout, so the time and costs even out.
Yes, 3D offers a greater capacity for re-use because everything is virtual--that's the only advantage of it.
The problem is that its advantage lasts only as long as those items can be re-used--once additional elements are required for other productions then new items have to be created, just like in 2D.

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

...and (unlike 3D) the elements that are created for it cannot be so easily reused and repurposed for additional materials which can bring additional profit to the IP franchise. Which is important to investors and the bean-counters who sign the checks.

The only project that I know of that has done this is Jimmy Neutron. I don't know of any other 3D movie that has reused characters. I believe Toy Story 2 and Shrek 2 both re-modeled all the main characters for the second movies.

Aloha,
the Ape

...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

I believe Toy Story 2 and Shrek 2 both re-modeled all the main characters for the second movies.

As did Ice Age, according to an article I just read (it was in either 3D World or Computer Graphics World).

And of course, much was made of Disney's late Circle 7 unit having to re-model all the Toy Story models for the now-cancelled Toy Story 3. Pixar declined to provide those models to Disney.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the conversation, I would figure 2D repurposes a lot more. I mean there's TV and all, but even when you see in all those late 80s/early 90s Disney books where they came right out and talked about/showed where they'd reuse reference and layouts, etc...

\:^/ <- the face you get from me.

Is 3d, computer-model-based animation capable of achieving the same sudden, extreme changes in form, volume, shape, and appearance that one might find in cartoons similar to the following - or can't it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2va3jByH_Vo

I haven't seen any 3D animation where it has. I'm not saying it can't. I'm saying, whether you care to believe me or not, that I don't know enough about 3D animation to know whether or not it can. If it can't, well, okay, fine then, I need to go practice drawing some more, because I want to animate extreme things, when appropriate. If it can do it - and I'd like to hear how, since I don't understand it at all, (wouldn't it stretch the textures into ugliness?, wouldn't it mean tons more models in use?, I honestly don't know) -- well, if it can, then that's awesome and I'm going to start learning how to model and texture and when I start at an animation institution, I'm going to focus on 3D.

p.s. your response needn't begin with an accusation that i'm a liar, thx

Is 3d, computer-model-based animation capable of achieving the same sudden, extreme changes in form, volume, shape, and appearance that one might find in cartoons ... or can't it?

I haven't seen any 3D animation where it has.

Go back about 12 years and check out a little movie called The Mask.
It's possible in claymation as well, but I don't believe that the directors of 3D feel that it's usually appropriate for those media. CG and clay are a little closer to live action in appearance, and how freaked out would the kids be if live action actors were growing and distorting with every gesture?

Little kids should be freaked out at every possible opportunity.

Little kids should be freaked out at every possible opportunity.

Please don't reproduce, ever.

Please don't reproduce, ever.

lol
James :cool:

Sorry, but somebody's got to offer some kind of counterbalance to the forumgoon anime-nerds yet to ooze from your loins. :| My duty to the gene pool is, like, to produce the chlorine that neutralizes your icky bacterias, teehee. :D

Actually, there's a good bit of squash-n-stretch in The Incredibles, if I'm not mistaken.

Not leastways because Bird was drawing directly over the renders with some newdoodle software they rigged to illustrate to the animators where he wanted to compress or extend characters for improvment.

I don't know how often CG modelled characters are reused (what about the animation built for all the peripheral crap, like commercials and bumps and so forth?), but they point is that you can tell investors that they can be, which leads to consolidated expenses, which always pleases the bean-counters.

While 2D can certainly reuse footage, it's always the same footage. It's done a lot in just about any series that mass-produces a lot of animation, from the old HB sitcoms to current anime. For that matter, Disney theatrical animators would sometimes trace over older sequences with new characters to save time and money, but that sort of reuse doesn't allow for the same range of potential that CG offers.

In 2D's favor, it's the ultimate way to train animators to animate. Nothing will teach you to appreciate and hone your sense of timing, spatial placement, and instinct for key and breakdown placement like having to draw every damn frame yourself, by hand. Those same skills can translate easily into superior animation when manipulating characters in a 3D environment, and the animator who's trained so would have better control and less reliance on fallible auto-tween functions and physics effects that so many computer animators use as a crutch.

Pages