I personally disagree with your assertion that people don’t care about the medium. In 2009, I had no desire to see a 90s style 2D Disney movie. In fact that desire died in 2001 and that’s why I switched to Pixar like everyone else. If Pixar could do fish in 2003, surely Disney could have done frogs in 2009. The Princess and the Frog would have looked phenomenal in the visual style of Tangled.

I like 2D films like 2012’s Winnie-the-Pooh, Boy and the World, Song of the Sea, Loving Vincent, but that’s because they innovate not copy.

Like I said, 2D isn’t dying, far from it. It’s booming on TV. But in terms of the visual freedom/quality (not always realized) that will reliably put butts in expensive movie seats, it’s going to be 99% 3D.

The only “2D” films that can even compete are 80% produced by Miyazaki in Japan, and they include plenty of added 3D elements. Hell, even South Park is produced using 3D software to mimic 2D cutouts. So it’s a really fuzzy line sometimes between the 2 and the 3 in D. If a computer is coloring and compositing your 2D drawings, then isn’t it still “computer graphics” in the end?

I do love 3D, and think it definitely has just as much potential as 2D, but many films done in 3D just can’t compare to the beauty of many hand-drawn animations, imo of course. To me, it’s a tremendous shame how 2D has been swallowed up by 3D in the world of Western Animated cinema. Decades of development and refinement of the medium all thrown out, due to cost and perceived return. (Unlike your claims, hand-drawn animation is much more expensive – it requires many more skilled animators working from scratch & more raw materials – not to say 3D doesn’t require skill – all great art needs skill – but with 3D once you have the base engine & programs and have the models ready, it’s really not as expensive, especially now)

You claim that there are confines of what you can do within 2D, to which I staunchly disagree. The world of experimental hand-drawn animation, and different styles in general prove that. Look with a more global perspective, such as the works of the Soviet Animators, the long development of anime in Japan, modern French & Irish cartoons, and of course the decades of prominence in America. The sheer variety and versatility of hand-drawn animation shows how few boundaries there are, and how the rules are constantly being changed and shattered.

Like I said a while back, I still like what Disney’s been doing these past few years. (In fact, while they’ve seemingly gotten better, Pixar seems to be declining) In spite of that, I think it’s a massive shame that the animation studio with the most resources in the world chose to turn their back on 2D. America has had a long and impressive history of hand-drawn animation, and if anyone could bring about a return to form, it would have been Disney. Really, its sadly comical how Disney should theoretically be able to take the most risks because of its success, when in reality it will never take risks because of that success. The Princess and the Frog was a gorgeous film, and I think the corporation heads were scared to promote a hand-drawn film, dooming it to comparative failure.

The film was great on its own, but showed just how much life and potential Disney’s animators still had. The film felt alive and excited in a way I haven’t really felt from Tangled or Frozen. Don’t get me wrong, I like both those films quite a lot and both are quite beautiful at times. That said, looking at the concept art for both films, I can unhesitatingly say I would have preferred them to be in 2D. I find it odd that you think they did things that only 3D could do, when they follow the same beats as pretty much any other Disney Princess film. (still well executed though) Sure, some of the sequences would have to be reconfigured, but all the script, scenes, and story would not have to have been changed at all. I mean the concept art for the film was handrawn, lol.

Maybe one day 2D film will make a comeback in the West. Until then I’ve still got the amazing works of Cartoon Saloon and countless Japanese Studios (such as Trigger, MAPPA, Madhouse, Production I.G., and many other studios directors and others) to occupy my attention &love.

3D is much more expensive to produce, and you’ll see fewer risks taken because of that. But it’s the increased visual quality (shadows, reflected colors, textures, cinematic camera motions…) that sets 3D films apart from what you see on TV, and gives audiences a reason to pay attention to them. They stand out.

There are dozens of places in Tangled where I’m awed by the sheer beauty of the rendering and character designs, and many of the sequences in it could only be realized properly in 3D. In 2D, the entire story would have to be re-written (and re-storyboarded) in order to work within the confines of what you can do in 2D, even with the bits of inserted 3D that Disney has used as far back as Beauty & The Beast.