When the first feature-length computer-generated film Toy Story came out in 1995, despite its limitations (the movie centering around toys was compensating for how plastic the textures looked), it became a landmark in animation history. A big reason 3D animation is still so prevalent is because of comparative novelty, whereas cel animation has been around since 1914.

Since then, the studio Pixar has developed films with diverse settings and character designs to test how far their technology goes (Finding Nemo simulating an ocean environment, Monsters Inc. giving characters unique textures such as fur or scales, etc). When the teaser for Incredibles 2 came out, most of the focus was on how the rendering has greatly improved since the first film came out over a decade ago.

However, Pixar has not gotten its reputation through its technological advancement alone; it is revered for balancing comedy with heartwarming stories that appeal to all demographics. Likewise, Shrek didn’t become popular in 2001 for being computer generated, but for its sarcastic and outrageous comedy that poked fun at common tropes of animation.

Nevertheless, DreamWorks Animation hasn’t released a 2D animated movie since Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas (which made far less money than Shrek) in 2003, which even utilized CGI elements in the film, and Disney hasn’t made a traditionally animated feature film since Princess and the Frog in 2009. Since around the mid-2000s, CGI animated movies have seemingly dominated the animation industry- but why is that?

J.K. Riki, a professional 2D animator, argues some points in favor of the transition from 2D to 3D animation. One of Riki’s arguments is that 3D animation is easier to master than 2D animation. “One requires a moderate level of comfort in a particular piece of software,” he explains. “The other demands a mastery of drawing that very well might cause Leonardo DaVinci to set down his quill and toss his sketchbooks into the trash bin.” Basically, it’s easier to learn how to use software efficiently while following an instruction booklet than to learn to create detailed drawings by hand.

This is a fair argument, but when it comes to a studio like Disney, a multi-billion dollar company boasting some of the biggest talent and most power in the business, why not take a little extra time to train more 2D animators? If anything, 2D animation requiring more mastery should encourage the studio to show off more 2D films. If we keep acting as if 2D animation isn’t profitable, we could be denying potential prodigies the chance to hone their talents.

Riki’s other arguments center around computers being able to create “perfect” animation that humans cannot achieve, being able to pull off subtle details better. This is a fair point, but animation is not meant to be perfectly detailed; it is meant to convey expressions and effects that cannot be done in reality. There is a place for realistic animation, especially in moments of drama or when trying to replicate an alternate version of our real world, but that should not be the only end goal, or else animation could lose its sense of escapism and fantasy. Riki himself even argues this in his follow-up blog: “Humans are imperfect, and it is – in my opinion – THROUGH that imperfection that great art is great.” In fact, Disney’s CGI films have gotten criticism for having repetitive designs compared to their earlier, hand-drawn works- though this criticism is mostly aimed towards Disney specifically more than studios like DreamWorks, and refers more to the lead female characters.

On the contrary, television seems to be leaning more towards two-dimensional animation, though there are many which are animated through computer programs like Flash, which is far less laborious than cel animation, though it can occasionally look cheap. This is likely because television animation quality is not held to the same standards as theatrical animated films, and can afford to be more off-model or be a little less fluid. On the other hand, three-dimensional animated shows may look too off-model in some cases, since television animation typically does not have the time nor the budget to create fluid, expressive, on-model animation to the same extent as film animation does, leading to more awkward designs or animation errors (for example: Jimmy’s hair clipping through the lockers in the 2000s TV show The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius). 

In fact, most modern 2D-animated films are film adaptations of 2D-animated shows, some examples from this year being Batman and Harley Quinn and My Little Pony: The Movie. Ironically, some theorize that 2D animation has become less prevalent partially because of film adaptations of television shows. In his video, “How RUGRATS Ended 2D DISNEY ANIMATION (@RebelTaxi) And Why 2D Can Come Back,” animation critic RebelTaxi highlights how the success of The Rugrats Movie (the first non-Disney animated movie to gross over $100 million) led to a slew of TV adaptations in theaters in the early 2000s that ended up financially and critically failing. Even Disney lost its reputation as a perfect brand, responsible for failed adaptations such as Doug’s 1st Movie and Teacher’s Pet The Movie. On the contrary, Pixar provided quality visuals that the viewer was compelled to see in theaters over cheaper television-style animation.

Would notable failures like Treasure Planet and Home on the Range have done any better if they had been animated in 3D? The latter has received mixed reviews, with more criticisms calling its story juvenile or boring- not much focus is on the animation style. However, after its financial failure, Disney decided to shut down their Florida animation studio, finding it best for short- and long-term business. Looking over Disney’s profits up to 2015, their CGI ventures have a varied level of profit just as traditional films do, though the few traditional films released by Disney in the past decade never broke beyond a $200 million box office. However, barring Frozen, most of the non-Pixar CGI films haven’t made half as much as the most profitable Pixar film (Toy Story 3), and interestingly, the other most successful Pixar films were all released prior to Disney’s acquisition of Pixar in 2006.

The last two traditionally animated Disney films didn’t live up to Disney’s expectations, but the reason cannot be narrowed down to style alone. Edwin Catmull, president of Disney Animated Studios at the time, retrospectively attributed The Princess and the Frog’s profitable but disappointing box office to a “feminine” fairy-tale title (hence why Tangled and Frozen were not named Rapunzel and The Snow Queen) and being released before Avatar, one of the biggest financial successes in theatrical history. Winnie the Pooh’s low box office success is likely a problem with demographics, since it seemed aimed at very young children and perhaps nostalgic adults.

Generally, the problem with recent animated films does not seem to boil down to audiences not liking traditional animation; if anything, it’s the studios that don’t find it worth the financial risk. 2D animation as a whole is not a dead art, as it dominates television, and the Internet is making it easier to share independently traditionally-animated projects. Hand-drawn and cel animation are also not the only animation styles, either. Stop motion animation, which nowadays is mostly dominated by Laika Entertainment, is a long process that usually doesn’t make enough of a profit, with The Boxtrolls producer Travis Knight saying, “You’re cutting your hands and contorting your body. But it’s an incredible art form that is so rare and so beautiful.” There is even currently an animated Van Gogh documentary in some theaters, Loving Vincent, which is the first animated feature done entirely in paint. These studios are spending agonizing lengths on these films for the sake of the art, and their astounding work usually shows on the screen. If smaller studios like Laika and Trademark Films can take these risks to show the power of animation, why is traditional animation considered too risky for a multi-billionaire studio like Disney?

Of course, everything boils down to one fact: is the animation style appropriate for the story being told? Would realism convey more emotion than stylization? Will copious amounts of sweat or expenses matter to the viewers watching the story unfold? Do we want to look technologically impressive for the time, or do we want to create a story that will be remembered for years regardless of how technology marches on? Neither 2D nor 3D animation should be discredited as a whole; in animation, every style should be an option as long as it can immerse the audience in the story’s world.