Whitewolf(uk) wrote:
I have to vote Both because it really does depend on the movie, like if Balto was in the same style as Shrek it'd look silly but if Shrek was in the same style as Balto it'd also look silly, I do wish that hand-drawn animation is'nt fazed out by 3D animation because I really do like the hand-drawn, it has more character to it and makes the movie just seem that bit better knowing that people have had the patience to sit and draw the characters that are now moving pictures and it seems to make the movie that bit more enjoyable, at least to me anyway.
Scientific. But think about this:
A hundred years ago, this man like peanut butter, jelly, and bread. So he came with an idea of making a sandwhich using those things. Since peanut butter was the first word to come to his head, he called his invention, the peanut-butter-and-jelly-sandwhich! And today it would seem weird to say it as a jelly-and-peanut-butter-sandwhich!
What do ya think? If BALTO was 3D, it would seem perfectly normal; if Shreik was 2D it would seem perfectly normal.
Anyway, 3D films are too unexpressive, while 2D ones tend to express every emotion to the perfect level. BALTO and THE FOX AND THE HOUND express amazingly, mainly sorrow, but also happiness, and all those appear when needed, and to the perfect level. Also when I saw SHREIK 2, I didn't hear and see those perfect emotians that 2D fims have.
Yes as somebody said, 2D films look surprisingly more realistic than 3D films, in both animation and expressian.
So I say, Are you crazy, 2D forever!
