Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×



Details

Submitted on
June 29, 2013
Image Size
227 KB
Resolution
399×500
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
10,760 (3 today)
Favourites
551 (who?)
Comments
40
Downloads
59
×
Frozen 2D Trailer Poster (Custom-made) by HKY91 Frozen 2D Trailer Poster (Custom-made) by HKY91
Disclaimer: I do not own any of the drawn characters and background in this poster.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconricea42991:
This is beautiful and proof that this movie could have easily been 2D with just some 3D for the castle and background. :favlove: In this art style I find both of them so much prettier too. 
Reply
:icontheherocreator:
I really miss Disney 2d animation
Reply
:iconiscreamer1:
*sigh* Why couldn't the real movie be like this?
Reply
:iconprocrastinator66:
procrastinator66 Nov 25, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
this looks amazing i can't wait to see the movie
Reply
:icontooneguy:
ToonEGuy Sep 10, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
If it were me, I would get rid of the "From the creators of Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph" part, cause to me I just found that to be shameless CGI promoting from Disney for a film that was originally supposed to be 2D. I would have put something like "From the creators of Princess and the Frog" myself.

To me Disney has already killed this movie, and I don't feel like they should even be showing any sense of satisfaction in making all these CGI films and turning away from 2D animation.
Reply
:iconphantomania:
I have to respectfully disagree on this one. As much as I love and support the classic 2D animation, I see nothing wrong with Disney promoting its CGI works as well. Honestly, Frozen has its own merits regardless of medium; it's a fantastic film that's brilliantly written, has fun and memorable characters, great songs and is still visually pleasing despite not being classic animation.

Besides that, Disney has ALWAYS promoted later films by including their predecessors as a selling tool. Most people associate, so they'll see the name of a movie they liked and be more inclined to see whatever the newest film is. The use of Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph was just to show that those other two popular films (from around the same time, so still fresh in the public memory) are from the same studio. It's not a new tactic and it's certainly not there to sell the CGI medium. It's just there to let the casual viewer know that things they might have previously enjoyed are related in some way to the film at hand.

As for Frozen's later incarnation -- there was a number of reasons why the film never went into production during the 2D animation era. Though a large part was with the adaptation -- they couldn't figure out how to work the character of The Snow Queen from the original Hans Christian Anderson tale.

And to your other point, yes the Princess and the Frog was hand drawn -- and beautifully so -- but ultimately it didn't make the money that movies like Tangled did, and hand drawn things are costly and time consuming. Unfortunate, but true. Doing things via CGI just makes the process faster and smoother, and it helps keep the Disney company up to date and therefore still in the running. Allowing them to make more films for us to love.

It also should be pointed out that, like Tangled, Frozen used both CGI and traditional hand drawn work in the production, blending the two. The characters were all hand drawn before they were modeled. It brings a much greater depth and shape to them that might lack if you used strictly either or method. 

Either way Frozen is an amazing movie and certainly in my top picks now! I highly recommend it if you haven't seen it yet. It's still in theaters and definitely worth the price of admission. c;
Reply
:icontooneguy:
ToonEGuy Jan 11, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Just bug off.
Reply
:iconphantomania:
Alrighty then.
Handled excellently. I love when people don't acknowledge the other side of an argument to save face.
Reply
:icontooneguy:
ToonEGuy Jan 11, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I could really care less about whatever arguments that any blind Disney suck-ups what to make to defend them and say that what they're doing is good. I hate what they're doing, so don't anyone try to tell me that I'm wrong.
Reply
:iconphantomania:
First off, I was not sucking up, merely pointing out that while I agree that 2D is absolutely stunning, that I see no real harm in the shift towards CGI. Being upset with a film just because it's CGI is ridiculous.

I took most offense to the insinuation that Frozen isn't a worthwhile film simply because it's CGI and not strictly 2D. You're free to have your own opinion but 1) posting it in a public forum such as dA is opening it up to responses; and 2) it's unfair to assume something is bad simply because you don't support the medium. Or to accuse anyone who enjoys Disney's CGI films as not seeing the majesty of 2D and accepting it as the only true art form. 

I adore the 2D films, personally, and for a long while I was a purist when it came to that era of Disney. The Hunchback of Notre Dame is still my favorite, but now, it's tied with Frozen. And you know why? Because the film is good. Regardless of the fact one is 2D and one is 3D I am able to still enjoy both because they're both well told stories with good characters and enchanting settings (not to mention amazing music).

So yes, I do adore Disney, but I know the company is not without its faults. Still, there's no reason to go around commenting on random people's art saying negative things about a film just because you don't like CGI.

I should also point out that throughout all this I've been level headed and kept all cheap shots out of it. There's simply no place for things like that in an honest discussion or debate.

Like I said, posting things like that for arguments' sake on a public forum is just asking for someone to fight with you on the issue. If you don't like CGI, all the power to you, but don't assume that making posts like yours on artwork related to a non-2D film is an appropriate course of action.
Reply
Add a Comment: