>>115005622>I think they prefer 3D because it is easier to retake a sceneBoth correct and incorrect. Usually animated films stick very heavily to the story board (for obvious reasons), so there's little need to "retake a scene", but 3D does allow the "camera" to be moved to different location, or the lighting to be played with etc. in a way that you couldn't really do in 2D. To actually remake a scene would arguably take more time for 3d, as after redoing the animation, it takes weeks or months rendering a scene. Can't deny the attractive quality that having a "camera" in animation has though.
>My take is, it isnt cheaper, but easier to sell as being cheaperThis is probably the answer. I'd argue because thing aren't redrawn each frame, they think it must be quicker, not thinking about the work that goes into shaders and programming weight and flow to hair and other textures, and how complex some models are to create, or that models are mostly created for each scene rather than re-used.
Another big reason is likely because the studio simply has no 2D department anymore. They'd need to spend money creating one, but why do that when you could simply make it 3D and save costs from making another studio?
We're likely not to see anther wave in 2D films until a foreign or independent film cracks the mainstream and causes the studios to chase after that 2D trend. It can't be Japanese either, because for whatever reason, we've separated their work from cartoons or animation as "Anime", which our animated films don't compete with.
