DoctorSpud Ah yes! The classic Hayao Miyazaki films! I consider those and The Simpsons movie the last great (well the "great" compliment is more on the Miyazaki side) 2-D movies ever created. I miss 2-D movies. That's why I like to draw my comic books- I'm helping to keep classic 2-D things alive.

Cinders I, two, miss the classic animation of the latter half of the last century. Unfortunately, I think Pixar would have to hire a whole new score of animators, as their field has always been CGI. So if anyone goes back to that old school animation style (Enchanted came close), it would probably be Disney.

glelsey I realize this is an old article now, but the subject interests me. Almost all professional 2D animation nowadays is done with the aid of computers. Some are still hand drawn frame by frame, but instead of being inked on acetate like they used to be, they are scanned and finished on the computer. And I can tell you from experience, as I studied animation at university, when you choose to specialize in 2D they try to force you into doing motion tweening instead of frame-by-frame. While tweening makes things a heck of a lot quicker (and is obviously cheaper to commission) it never really looks as natural as frame-by-frame, where you have complete control over what the characters are doing. I don't expect we will ever get to go back to acetate again (it disappeared from the professional world long before I graduated - my only experience of it is from a few college projects). But I don't think that bringing back frame-by-frame animation is asking for too much. There's a problem though. People in the animation industry just aren't hiring frame-by-framers right now. Bits of mostly tweened shows tend to include bits of frame-by-frame, but are often done without too much effort. I promised myself I wouldn't give up as a frame-by-frame animator, so right now I'm stuck in the world of freelance work, including ecards and online games. Cinders is right about Pixar having to hire loads of new animators to do 2D; while there are those multi-talented special people who can do every style of animation wonderfully, most are specifically trained in one area, with a few other skills they can get by in. But Pixar are trendsetters in the animation world, as well as being fantastic storytellers and always coming up with original ideas and lovable characters. Considering how famous Pixar are for being primarily a 3D CGI studio, it may seem odd. I have this fear that, if they make a 2D movie, people will be too quick to judge it because it's different and will just say "it's not the same as their other movies". I mean, duh. Of course it's not the same - it's in 2D! What I'm worried about is these people who spread the myth that change is always a bad thing. I have every bit of faith in Pixar that they could make a fantastic 2D movie; they'd hire all the best animators, get the best equipment, and use their usual clever minds to come up with another original masterpiece. I just don't know how the viewers will react. Disney are still capable of great 2D animation too, though. I can't judge Enchanted as I've not seen it, but was very impressed with The Princess and the Frog. They had obviously used computers, but hadn't taken advantage of computers too much (like a lot of TV cartoons do). While the equipment was new, the techniques themselves were very much traditional, which is all we can ask for really.

toystory4everr EVERYTHING IS IN 3D Now, even the DS is now a 3DS! like i miss the first 3 dimentinal animated film ever, TOY STORY as it was, but they had to make it premire in 3D like 11 years later! Because the third one came in the century of 3D! i miss 2D movies and they need to come back, 3D is just ridiculos but cool at the same time!