Has anyone ever heard of the 11 year flip? its supposed to be that every 11 years animation flips to a new format and supposedly 3ds 11 years are up soon, all its going to take is another one or two 3d movies to flop and 2d is back in. has anyone ever heard this? whats your comments on it?
—
The Danger Monk
no offense but its quite a ridiculous theory especially coz it dosent show how and why it would to 2d and not else
That has got to be the stupidest thing I've heard on this forum in a long time and that's saying a lot.
What historical evidence do you have to support such a hypothesis? Let me guess: none.
I think you guys are being a bit rude about this. There is some merit to Tha d.l.e's comment but not about fliping and floping from 2D to 3D. My thought is more on how the buisness of producing animation has evolved. For that you can see a patern develope since the 40's that shows how producing a cartoon has changed. it's not really every 11 years, more like 15.
two major factors in this trend are money and technology. The 2D-3D argument is not really a factor.
The only thing to do with good advice is to pass it on. It is never of any use to oneself. My Blog: Strange Thoughts
Sounds like someone's testing out his thesis argument...
Well, that makes a little more sense. If that's the case, then this is just the "next big thing" topic that we discussed like 2 seconds ago. It also seems to be yet another annoying 2D vs. 3D thread.
Since 2D dominated for 90 years before 3D, DLE's 11 year "flip" from 2D to 3D and back made absolutely no sense.
As for DLE's statement that "all its [sic] going to take is another one or two 3d movies to flop and 2d is back in," wouldn't 2D also have to STOP flopping? 2D films are still in the theaters and they are flopping, so doesn't that mean that stop-motion or rotoscoping takes over?
If all we're talking about is the technology used to create animation, then, yes, there will be some new technology soon, and some technology after that.
It's not like new tech comes along and we completely disregard old methods, however. It's more like a cumulative effect, like a chef who makes pizza for 70 years and gradually learns how to make it faster and better. And it's not 11 or 15 years. It's whenever.
I think in large part the cycle may be due in part to the way the economy has been ran for the past fifty years. The movers and shakers of the world use small companys, like studios, to further their own ends. If they need a studio to be a 3d studio, then they pick up a 2d studio and gut it. There are also companys that absorbed the competition, once again, to further their needs. Onces the need fades, so does the subsidiary. Also, I think that taxes play a very large part in the making of cycle myth. Once a company hit a line of being useful for tax purposes, then they get cut off, shut down, or sold off.
Are we writing another paper?