If we take a look at the recent releases, there is no major movie based on 2D animation. Is 2D animation worn out, or just not commercial enough? Even if those classic animations are always a pleasure to watch, you have to admit that the modern animation is more attractive. They are more real, and people seem to love that. If we take a look at the box office, we see 2 animation movies in top 10 (Shrek 2 and Finding Nemo) with 1,7 billion dollars revenue. That is amazing. And for both movies CGI (Computer-Generated Imagery) was used.

So, why do studios use CGI, and why do we like it so much? I tend to say, that from the film fan’s point of view, it’s the story that makes the movie so attractive, because, anytime I would like to see a movie like Shrek, with real actors, scenes, and other real stuff. But it’s the story that does all the trick. From the creators’ point of view, it is cheaper. Because, with today’s special effects, anything is possible with real actors, and they can’t deny that. But, like I said, it’s cheaper than physical methods, such as constructing elaborate miniatures for effects shots or hiring a great deal of extras for crowd scenes, and because it allows the creation of images that would not be feasible using any other method. It can also allow a single artist to produce content without the use of actors or other contributors to the project.

The first studio to release a fully computer-generated feature film was Pixar, with their Toy Story. The movie was a major box office hit, generating $360,000,000. Pixar is also “responsible” with other successful animation movies, such as Finding Nemo, A Bug’s Life or The Incredibles. The other real competitor for Pixar is DreamWorks SKG, with Shrek, Shrek 2(this is the animation that generated the largest income for an animation movie, over 880 million dollars), Antz or Chicken Run.

Last 5 posts by Deepak Shrivastava