But why are you doing it? Those would be actual reasons.
I had a class where we had to do a term paper, persuasive as opposed to informative, and she asked us to pick a topic we feel strongly about. In my case it was solar power. Then when we had the subject chosen, she asked us to do the best paper we could fighting for other side. I as a strong supporter of the adoption of solar power had to gather information to convince the reader that it in fact was costly and implausible (whether or not that's the case is beside the point of the assignment, you have to push in that direction regardless).
Since the move from 2D to 3D is pretty rote and well-documented, especially with that particular company, that might make for a more interesting paper. Or since it had less to do with medium, maybe talk about where you see the pegs lining up and write informatively about what the future holds for either side...
I had to vote for 2d. Because of all the 3d films I've seen they've all had a similar plastic look to them. The only distinguishing aspect has been the story. Whereas with 2d there have been the same story told with very widely differing techniques. I get tired of seeing the same tub toys telling varying stories.
Your poll is flawed. You should have a "no preference" choice.
Many people don't care so much what technology is used as long as the animation, story, and characters are interesting.
Does "3D" include stop-motion movies?
Your thesis is only feeding the popular misconception that the technique used is what drives people to theaters. 2D movies waned when stories became repetitive, predictable, or just plain bad. At the same time, early 3D films had compelling stories, relateable characters, plus the "frosting" of looking different. But make no mistake; it is the frosting.
Final Fantasy, Shark Tale, Ant Bully... three examples that disprove the concept that audiences will flock to movies simply because of how many D's the animation uses. By the same token, the rerelease of Cinderella on DVD sold millions of copies.
this is just one part of what I want to talk about in my oral presentation of my thesis. I am only talking about Disney movies in general. The 3D option is only about CGI no stop motion. And I know there are only 2 options. I know some people don't have a preference. Choose as if you had to pick one of them. Thanks for the responses :)
You know what is so funny? Both 2D and 3D animated movies are projected onto a flat screen, meaning that the experience for the audience is just the same. If you wanted, you could make a 3D CG movie seem as flat as a pancake, and, if you had the time and money, hand drawn 2D as realistic as real life.
I want to see a good story and want to be entertained longer than the duration of the movie. I want to experience that Wow! effect, that keeps repeating on my retina, days after I watched the movie. Whoever can pull that off, in 2D or 3D, gets my vote for best animation of the year.
Because this choice wasn't there, I didn't vote. There should have been an "other (explain)" choice.
I know some people don't have a preference. Choose as if you had to pick one of them.
It's a false choice, and therefore an invalid question. If you really want to know people's preferences, you've got to give them choices that represent their viewpoints. Otherwise, it's like asking "have you stopped beating your dog - yes or no?"
It's a false choice, and therefore an invalid question. If you really want to know people's preferences, you've got to give them choices that represent their viewpoints. Otherwise, it's like asking "have you stopped beating your dog - yes or no?"
Maybe the question need to be viewed by the teacher, a yes/no option is very harsh. But I will vote.
It's not about 2d vs 3d. It's about good ol' fashiioned storytelling that takes its time to develop without corporate meddling and smart-alecky writing and bodily function jokes.
I believe audiences are starved for a 2d story told and drawn traditionally like Pinocchio or Cinderella. Artists not being so self-indulgent in designing, Stories originating visually in the board stage, and writers who think visually rather than those who enjoy hearing their "clever" writing read aloud.
thanks for the people that our voting and who are stating their opinion. I tried to see if I could add more options but there is no way to edit the poll itself sorry.
current Maya student @ NYIT
So start a new poll. Include options that give people a real choice. You may end up with results that surprise you, not to mention a much larger sample size.
It also may cause you to rethink your premise. Based on your current results, it seems 3D should never have become popular. So maybe it's not the technique? How will that affect your report? You certainly won't be able to claim audiences prefer 3D and then point to this poll as support ;)
Have you asked kids what their favorite animated movies are? If not, ask them and then ask them why it's their favorite. I'm willing to bet good money that they will not say because it's 3D.
The reason Disney moved over to 3D is because PIXAR's movies were grossing a ton of money and Disney's own traditional features were bombing left and right. So the Disney executives came to the conclusion that their movies were tanking because they where not 3D. I mean, they're Disney and it couldn't possibly because they're stories where bad, esspecially since many of those same executives would have stories changed to their liking, so it couldn't be their fault. :rolleyes:
Personally, I don't care how many D's a movie has. As long as the story interests me and the characters and plot of the movie draw me in, I'll like it. If PIXAR's next movie was animated traditionally, I'm sure it would be a huge success just like all their CGI movies.
Aloha,
the Ape
I don't have a preference.
I'm usually not interested in seeing animation films in 2D OR 3D......because the subject matter seldom interests me. This and I have worked in the medium for years now...
What would grab me about seeing an animated film is the story.
If the story is engaging or interesting to me, then the medium its told in is irrelevant.
Comments
But why are you doing it? Those would be actual reasons.
I had a class where we had to do a term paper, persuasive as opposed to informative, and she asked us to pick a topic we feel strongly about. In my case it was solar power. Then when we had the subject chosen, she asked us to do the best paper we could fighting for other side. I as a strong supporter of the adoption of solar power had to gather information to convince the reader that it in fact was costly and implausible (whether or not that's the case is beside the point of the assignment, you have to push in that direction regardless).
Since the move from 2D to 3D is pretty rote and well-documented, especially with that particular company, that might make for a more interesting paper. Or since it had less to do with medium, maybe talk about where you see the pegs lining up and write informatively about what the future holds for either side...
I had to vote for 2d. Because of all the 3d films I've seen they've all had a similar plastic look to them. The only distinguishing aspect has been the story. Whereas with 2d there have been the same story told with very widely differing techniques. I get tired of seeing the same tub toys telling varying stories.
Your poll is flawed. You should have a "no preference" choice.
Many people don't care so much what technology is used as long as the animation, story, and characters are interesting.
Does "3D" include stop-motion movies?
Your thesis is only feeding the popular misconception that the technique used is what drives people to theaters. 2D movies waned when stories became repetitive, predictable, or just plain bad. At the same time, early 3D films had compelling stories, relateable characters, plus the "frosting" of looking different. But make no mistake; it is the frosting.
Final Fantasy, Shark Tale, Ant Bully... three examples that disprove the concept that audiences will flock to movies simply because of how many D's the animation uses. By the same token, the rerelease of Cinderella on DVD sold millions of copies.
this is just one part of what I want to talk about in my oral presentation of my thesis. I am only talking about Disney movies in general. The 3D option is only about CGI no stop motion. And I know there are only 2 options. I know some people don't have a preference. Choose as if you had to pick one of them. Thanks for the responses :)
current Maya student @ NYIT
I want to experience that Wow! effect
You know what is so funny? Both 2D and 3D animated movies are projected onto a flat screen, meaning that the experience for the audience is just the same. If you wanted, you could make a 3D CG movie seem as flat as a pancake, and, if you had the time and money, hand drawn 2D as realistic as real life.
I want to see a good story and want to be entertained longer than the duration of the movie. I want to experience that Wow! effect, that keeps repeating on my retina, days after I watched the movie. Whoever can pull that off, in 2D or 3D, gets my vote for best animation of the year.
Because this choice wasn't there, I didn't vote. There should have been an "other (explain)" choice.
It's a false choice, and therefore an invalid question. If you really want to know people's preferences, you've got to give them choices that represent their viewpoints. Otherwise, it's like asking "have you stopped beating your dog - yes or no?"
Maybe the question need to be viewed by the teacher, a yes/no option is very harsh. But I will vote.
It's not about 2d vs 3d. It's about good ol' fashiioned storytelling that takes its time to develop without corporate meddling and smart-alecky writing and bodily function jokes.
I believe audiences are starved for a 2d story told and drawn traditionally like Pinocchio or Cinderella. Artists not being so self-indulgent in designing, Stories originating visually in the board stage, and writers who think visually rather than those who enjoy hearing their "clever" writing read aloud.
thanks for the people that our voting and who are stating their opinion. I tried to see if I could add more options but there is no way to edit the poll itself sorry.
current Maya student @ NYIT
So start a new poll. Include options that give people a real choice. You may end up with results that surprise you, not to mention a much larger sample size.
It also may cause you to rethink your premise. Based on your current results, it seems 3D should never have become popular. So maybe it's not the technique? How will that affect your report? You certainly won't be able to claim audiences prefer 3D and then point to this poll as support ;)
Have you asked kids what their favorite animated movies are? If not, ask them and then ask them why it's their favorite. I'm willing to bet good money that they will not say because it's 3D.
The reason Disney moved over to 3D is because PIXAR's movies were grossing a ton of money and Disney's own traditional features were bombing left and right. So the Disney executives came to the conclusion that their movies were tanking because they where not 3D. I mean, they're Disney and it couldn't possibly because they're stories where bad, esspecially since many of those same executives would have stories changed to their liking, so it couldn't be their fault. :rolleyes:
Personally, I don't care how many D's a movie has. As long as the story interests me and the characters and plot of the movie draw me in, I'll like it. If PIXAR's next movie was animated traditionally, I'm sure it would be a huge success just like all their CGI movies.
Aloha,
the Ape
I don't have a preference.
I'm usually not interested in seeing animation films in 2D OR 3D......because the subject matter seldom interests me. This and I have worked in the medium for years now...
What would grab me about seeing an animated film is the story.
If the story is engaging or interesting to me, then the medium its told in is irrelevant.