>>79791996The "reason" is that mostly bad pitches but more so bad marketing were responsible for a lot of the 2D film flops of the early 2000s.
Most 2D Dreamworks movies were either historically based or based on religion, which is fine but doesn't attract the crowds it used to. Take Pocahontas for example.
The Iron Giant especially stands out as an early example, but The Princess and the Frog was also a "failure" in that it didn't attract the crowds it did (a lot of that due to the title containing the word "princess".)
PatF's not printing money resulted in the rushed transition of Frozen from a 2D to a CGI movie. Combine that with the relative success of both Pixar movies and the movies that Dreamworks/Blue Sky/etc were getting, the rest is kind of history.
I'd hate to call it self-sabotage, but a lot of the premises put out for 2D movies in that period were fairly outdated.
If it had been Big Hero 6 that was 2D instead of Winnie the Pooh, complete with over-the-top action reminiscent of anime, I'm sure that it would have made just as much money.
But yet again, it's mostly money reasons. If a 2D animated movie comes out that makes LOADSAMONEY, then it might persuade big studios to take another look.
But as it is, CGI is what sells, so everyone will be doing it until people get sick of it. Which, in turn, isn't the best environment for a 2D movie to garner enough attention to be considered a runaway success. It's a vicious cycle.
