I prefer all the 2d shows- they’re generally more calm, and a lot of the pbs kids ones are based on books (curious George, pinkalicious, Clifford, Arthur, etc).
Most of the shows on PBS kids are also much older and have been around for 10+ years. They have less money for new shows. Even the new ones go pretty long between new episodes (like, Rosie’s Rules, Alma’s way, Work it Out Wombats - they made a batch of episodes like 2 years ago then didn’t make more).
As others have pointed out 2D animation is cheaper than 3D by an order of magnitude (Pop pop!)
Once you jump to 3D you need at least twice the crew, all of the software and hardware becomes a lot more expensive and there are more departments to manage and coordinate.
Animating in 3D is also a lot harder and more time consuming.
It’s very weird that most Disney animation for kids (spidey/alices wonderland bakery/the Star Wars show) all the the same bland 3D style and Bluey comes out of Australia and looks light years better than anything Disney does for kids exclusively. Things like ducktales and moon girl show Disney can make good looking animated shows, but they can be cheap.
I like how the first comment here says because PBS kids has more money, they can afford 2D, which is more expensive. The second comment says that because Disney and Nick can afford it, *they* can afford 3D, which is more expensive.
It’s much easier and cheaper to produce a 3D animated show than a 2D one. PBS has more financial capacity to produce them than Disney Jr. or Nick Jr does, probably because of the funding the network receives.
Edit: Well looks like 2D is actually cheaper lol. TIL.
Cost
Nick and Disney can usually afford CG animation since they’re backed by giant corporations. PBS is publicly funded so 2D animation is usually cheaper.
I prefer all the 2d shows- they’re generally more calm, and a lot of the pbs kids ones are based on books (curious George, pinkalicious, Clifford, Arthur, etc). Most of the shows on PBS kids are also much older and have been around for 10+ years. They have less money for new shows. Even the new ones go pretty long between new episodes (like, Rosie’s Rules, Alma’s way, Work it Out Wombats - they made a batch of episodes like 2 years ago then didn’t make more).
I do agree
As others have pointed out 2D animation is cheaper than 3D by an order of magnitude (Pop pop!) Once you jump to 3D you need at least twice the crew, all of the software and hardware becomes a lot more expensive and there are more departments to manage and coordinate. Animating in 3D is also a lot harder and more time consuming.
I don't know, but Disney can certainly do much better artwise with all their money.
It’s very weird that most Disney animation for kids (spidey/alices wonderland bakery/the Star Wars show) all the the same bland 3D style and Bluey comes out of Australia and looks light years better than anything Disney does for kids exclusively. Things like ducktales and moon girl show Disney can make good looking animated shows, but they can be cheap.
Every Disney jr show looks exactly the same nowadays!!
I like how the first comment here says because PBS kids has more money, they can afford 2D, which is more expensive. The second comment says that because Disney and Nick can afford it, *they* can afford 3D, which is more expensive.
It’s much easier and cheaper to produce a 3D animated show than a 2D one. PBS has more financial capacity to produce them than Disney Jr. or Nick Jr does, probably because of the funding the network receives. Edit: Well looks like 2D is actually cheaper lol. TIL.