Yeah, that's right--being 3D.
We can discuss, argue, and debate the aesthetics, technical aspects, and production beneftis of 2D vs 3D for days, and it's happened before. This is much more important--it's not about us.
When a character has been 2D for a while, what's it like for him/her when he/she becomes 3D? I mean, how do they feel? What do they like about it, or about the 3D world they live in?
My delivery is a bit goofy, but it's a question I'd love to hear some feedback on. I finished modeling and rigging one of my characters (for the 10th time) and I want to do a dialogue short where he expresses the experience of having become 3D. Mainly it's an animation test for him (me?) to see what he can or can't do.
Cartoon Thunder
There's a little biker in all of us...
I'm trying to think of a single 2D character that would be able to consider themselves as living in anything other than a 3D world? All of their actions occupy a space; flat painted cels to us, but drawn to represent very vast and solid places.
A transfer into computer-animated worlds would be a paint job in comparison. Because of what 3D offers in the pipeline, like extra detail on props, etc. they could take note of that. I think it'd be mostly shock, and then adjusting to a new look.
Another good question as a corollary would be, how do -specific- characters react? If we're researching the -feeling- perhaps asking Bugs Bunny about his experience would be more helpful than posing a general question to the ether.
I think that there are pros and cons on both sides of that isle. There are smaller intricaces that can be accomplished with 3D (such as an eye muscle twitch) that's a bit more cumbersome in 2d. However there are just certain designs that don't work well in 3D. I have two examples.
Mickey Mouse. There are so many cheats on Mickey to make him work in 2D as it is. His ears alone just don't translate well into 3D. I just recently saw a 50th anniversary commercial for the Park and it had the classic characters in 3d, they looked awful, just awful. Not only did they not look good because they were 3D, they just weren't GOOD 3D. I think that people have been looking for the holy grail of squash and stretch in 3D, but those commercials don't make those characters look like they have any physical integrity at all. In one scene Goofy puts his hand on a shelf and his hand doesn't even look like it has bones in it, it just rests... wrong. Those classic Disney characters look better in 2D. Or I haven't seen a convincing example to justify that 3D is a better or viable process.
Homer Simpson. One of my favorite episodes of the Simpsons is Homer3 Part of the Treehouse of Horror Episodes. It's the one where homer becomes 3D. Now, I think Homer could be great in 3D and that episode was really old when 3D was still a relatively new process for broadcast animation. I think nowdays the execution would be better, but Homer is still a character that's better served in 2D.
I think if you have the final product in mind, that you can definitely fit the design of your character to maximize it's potential for that specific medium. I think trying to animate Buzz lightyear in 2D was tragic. I understand them simplifying the design to work in 2d, but it just didn't have the impact that he did in 3D.
Just my 2 cents
There are tons of contemporary characters that only work in 2D - Dexter's Lab, Fairly OddParents, PowerPuff Girls, Time Squad (I'm sensing a Nick influence - NickFluence - here). They're iconic rather than dimensional.
I've never understood how people can say that characters like Mickey don't work in 3D. They're drawn to look 3D, so how is it that when they actually possess the third D, folks don't buy it. I think it has more to do with familiarity and preference than whether it looks "right" or not.
Except for those 50th anniversary commercials. They look awful in those, but that has more to do with them being off-model and too floppy than their 3D state. Someone has confused squash and stretch with floppiness.
Also, it's not as though all 2D renditions of Mickey and the gang are winners either. There's some 50's era stuff that's just schtinky.
I think in this case, my ol' boy is gonna take some shots at his artist (me) with it. He's excited because he responds to light more realistically. He's no longer stuck on a piece of paper. It's easier to close his eyes. Somehow he's more expressive (I've got a bunch of face morphs done already for lip synch and expression).
Then I thought of the motorcycles--they're faster, they corner better, they can actually turn the forks, etc.
It's tempting to post a shot, but I have this awful habit of posting things that aren't ready, not finished, etc. I'll show something decent when I'm further down the road.
Thanks for the input. Where I like the look of hand drawn, and I'm not a terrible artist (nobody's going to hire me for my drawing skills though), my schedule makes 3D more attractive right now because I can reuse a model for better results than doing limited animation in Flash or Toon Boom. My results so far are better than I thought they'd be. If things go well I plan to move from Anim8or (free) to Hash ($300). If that goes well, and somebody drops some serious bucks on me, I'll move up to Maya, but I ain't holding my breath.
Cartoon Thunder
There's a little biker in all of us...