/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6629770
>>6630144
>>6627056
I see this misconception all the time about the shift to 3d being because its cheaper than 2d, but that isn't it at all. 3D is a systematized process that can be standardized across a large team of artists of varying skill level, while 2d animation is very reliant on the ability of any given artist to draw well. The fact of the matter is that a LOT of people working at high tier studios cannot draw well enough to animate in 2d, but they CAN move sliders around on a computer. The skill of being a good draftsman is dying and executives know that its simply a safer investment to go with something that doesn't rely on the skill of a few dozen people when several hundred million, potentially billions of dollars is on the line.

Incidentally, its also why stories, writing, characters and basically everything is getting so boring and predictable in movies nowadays, because its just safer to repackage safe and proven ideas than take a risk on new people with a unique idea. And ironically, the safer something seems to an executive, the more money they will throw at it as an investment; that's why you see these huge inflated budgets for sequels and remakes. So yes, 3d IS more expensive, but only because its safe to make it so expensive

>>6460328
Don't bother with the outdated world views. Embrace magical thinking, daydreaming, resource hoarding and procrastination.
You can worship AI as a bonus.

>>6265652