Would animation have been better if Toy Story didn't exist?

[DisneyEra]

Fact is 2D features just can't compete with these Billion $ CGI franchises. Also, it wasn't just Disney's 2D films in the early 2000s that suffered. DreamWorks released these 3 2D features from March 2000 to June 2003:





They all bombed. And this film from Fox was the end for Don Bluth:



This damage was so severe, 2D features in the states NEVER recovered. So it wasn't just a Disney/Pixar thing, it was an industry thing that effected ALL! And none tried to fix 2D feature Animation, they ALL jumped ship & went with CGI, never even glanced back & well, here we are now.

[unprincess]

I said this in another thread but I think Shrek was more responsible for the state the animation industry is in today than Toy Story. Shrek not only made everyone associate CGI with being hip and cool it ruined storytelling in animated films for the following decades. Instead of movies being genuine and heartfelt everything had to be a wink and a joke as if saying "these are just cartoons! taking it as a serious storytelling art form is lame and boring and your kids wont have any fun! so here's a fart joke!"

[ce1ticmoon]

I do think the popularity of Shrek was responsible for some unfortunate trends in animation, and I've never been one for fart humor, but I think Shrek itself was a great film that has become a bit under-appreciated due to the trends that it started. The film is a bit mean spirited-toward Disney, depending on how you look at it, but overall, it has some great humor and it actually is genuine and heartfelt when it needs to be.

[2Disney4Ever]

I said this in another thread but I think Shrek was more responsible for the state the animation industry is in today than Toy Story. Shrek not only made everyone associate CGI with being hip and cool it ruined storytelling in animated films for the following decades. Instead of movies being genuine and heartfelt everything had to be a wink and a joke as if saying "these are just cartoons! taking it as a serious storytelling art form is lame and boring and your kids wont have any fun! so here's a fart joke!"

Yeah, I also blame Shrek more than I do Toy Story. At least Pixar always made their movies for Disney in the 90's, so there never should have been any reason for Disney to feel the need to compete in that medium. Both studios chose to do their own thing when it came to animation, and it was for the better that they did.

This topic wasn't meant to "blame" Toy Story, per say, as it was meant to just question whether or not animation would have turned out better if it didn't get made.

[MeerkatKombat]

I said this in another thread but I think Shrek was more responsible for the state the animation industry is in today than Toy Story. Shrek not only made everyone associate CGI with being hip and cool it ruined storytelling in animated films for the following decades. Instead of movies being genuine and heartfelt everything had to be a wink and a joke as if saying "these are just cartoons! taking it as a serious storytelling art form is lame and boring and your kids wont have any fun! so here's a fart joke!"

I agree with this.
I also think if it hadn't been Toy Story, it would have been something else. CGI would have happened with or without Pixar. Another studio would have been responsible for the first full length CGI feature and people would have gone nuts for it because it was new.

It's evolution and it's always happening. Animation wouldn't have just stayed the same because Toy Story didn't happen.
It wasn't like the 90's Disney films were 100% hand drawn, CGI had been steadily creeping in more and more and so it would suggest that eventually Disney would end up going full CGI. The world will carry on turning even if you stay still.
Nothing stays the same and nothing lasts forever and we shouldn't really want the world to stagnate and I'm someone who adores and prizes my 2D animation. There are bigger things in the world and at least I have 2D films that I can still enjoy.

I thought 2Disney4Ever had got over this or was working on it. I knew immediately from the thread title who had started it. This obsession is beginning to build again and I've noticed it invading threads again. You were doing well.

[2Disney4Ever]

I thought 2Disney4Ever had got over this or was working on it. I knew immediately from the thread title who had started it. This obsession is beginning to build again and I've noticed it invading threads again. You were doing well.

You misunderstand. I'm really not trying to use this topic to attack CGI but to encourage a constructive discussion about it. If you've read my original post, I even said that I don't necessarily hate Toy Story, and that's not why I brought up the question of this topic, but the tiring amount of computer animated movies today and the bad effect they've had over hand-drawn animation has hindered my relationship of still liking Pixar movies quite a bit.

[Lady Cluck]

After a long string of utter flops and garbage films, Disney Animation could have easily closed shop after Disney acquired Pixar, and the company very much toyed with the idea WHICH LASSETER FOUGHT AGAINST. I'm sure 2Disney4Ever would have preferred the studio going extinct over them embracing computer animation

I still feel WDAS and Pixar are distinct enough in style and tone to co-exist but I guess that's just me.

If The Princess and the Frog was as big of a hit as Tangled, then we might be living in a different world, but I don't blame CG animation for that. I blame the racist society we live in, which frankly causes bigger problems than what Disney films are being made, and the piss poor marketing of Disney for that film, proving that a film needs to stand on its own merits rather than rely on invoking nostalgia.

[DisneyFan09]

I still feel WDAS and Pixar are distinct enough in style and tone to co-exist but I guess that's just me.

Agreed. And unfortunately the world and circumstances have disagreed.

If The Princess and the Frog was as big of a hit as Tangled, then we might be living in a different world, but I don't blame CG animation for that. I blame the racist society we live in, which frankly causes bigger problems than what Disney films are being made, and the piss poor marketing of Disney for that film, proving that a film needs to stand on its own merits rather than rely on invoking nostalgia.

Despite that I've never really ranted about the demise of hand drawn, it would've been truly great if "TP&TF" made hand drawn animation hip again. But honestly, there was nothing particularly wrong with the marketing. Considering how successful the fab four of the Renaissance films were, it's not strange "TP&TF" was marketed in a nostalgic way. Considering how Disney purists whine about the lying aspects of trailers, at least "TP&TF" was marketed honestly.

[BK]

What a stupid topic.

Must every post be the same CGI-bashing lamenting Disney's newfound destruction?

You are annoying and bring no new points to the table.

In fact, I think it is a really good joke you think that Disney catered specifically to you during the 1990s (which btw used CGI) and pandered solely to you. They don't give a shit about you.

At the end, whether animation or live action, the people involved want to tell a story that hopefully speaks to a wider audience. END.

Now, if you can't make any post without your drivel, then don't post.

[DisneyFan09]

I do think the popularity of Shrek was responsible for some unfortunate trends in animation, and I've never been one for fart humor, but I think Shrek itself was a great film that has become a bit under-appreciated due to the trends that it started. The film is a bit mean spirited-toward Disney, depending on how you look at it, but overall, it has some great humor and it actually is genuine and heartfelt when it needs to be.

"Shrek" was quite praised during it's release and I agree that it has it's perks. I loved the satire and the darker humor. However, in the third act it suddenly became a trite and derivative melodrama in the same mold as romantic comedies.

[2Disney4Ever]

I do think the popularity of Shrek was responsible for some unfortunate trends in animation, and I've never been one for fart humor, but I think Shrek itself was a great film that has become a bit under-appreciated due to the trends that it started. The film is a bit mean spirited-toward Disney, depending on how you look at it, but overall, it has some great humor and it actually is genuine and heartfelt when it needs to be.

"Shrek" was quite praised during it's release and I agree that it has it's perks. I loved the satire and the darker humor. However, in the third act it suddenly became a trite and derivative melodrama in the same mold as romantic comedies.

Everyone was watching Shrek 2 at work today, and as a testament to how little CG movies mean to me anymore I just sat in another room the whole time where I wouldn't have to look at it, because I no longer want anything to do with one of the movies responsible for killing off hand-drawn animation and ruining the industry. I would have done the same if they were wanting to watch Tangled or Frozen instead.

[PatrickvD]

Everyone was watching Shrek 2 at work today, and as a testament to how little CG movies mean to me anymore I just sat in another room the whole time where I wouldn't have to look at it

There are jobs where you can sit around and watch Shrek 2? Does this involve an actual salary?

[2Disney4Ever]

Everyone was watching Shrek 2 at work today, and as a testament to how little CG movies mean to me anymore I just sat in another room the whole time where I wouldn't have to look at it

There are jobs where you can sit around and watch Shrek 2? Does this involve an actual salary?

That's just when they don't have any work for you to do.

[lord-of-sith]

Man, there are some SERIOUSLY bitter attitudes going on in this thread. To insinuate that Toy Story or ANY singular CGI motion picture is responsible for the demise of traditional animation by Disney is just silly. Sure, I love traditional animation just as much as anyone on here, and find it much more enjoyable to watch than CGI animation, but I do not begrudge the studio even a little bit for making the transfer. Why? Because they would have been stupid not to, and it's OUR fault. Well, maybe not the people in this particular thread (so it would appear), but our society in general. The population wanted something fresh and new, and hip CGI films fit the bill nicely. Hence, they made a lot of money, and traditional films floundered.

However, there is some blame to be placed on the studio. Many here claim to not like Pixar's movies, and I'm calling shenanigans on that right now. With the exception of a few that have been released only recently, Pixar's films are universally loved and, unlike Dreamworks, for the correct reasons: because they're quality films with earnest effort and love. Unlike Dreamworks whose films (at least a dozen post-Shrek) were made with ill intent towards Disney, Pixar produced well made, enjoyable films. Isn't that what is most important? Disney really dropped the ball in the last stretch of their traditional animation with films like Brother Bear, Home on the Range, and countless cheap Disney sequels being the examples of "fresh" 2D animation in the market. It's no mystery why consumers wanted Pixar's brand of quality story telling and likable characters over Roseanne as a cow.

Princess and the Frog was a great effort by the studio to win the public back to 2D animation, and it was a modest success. Unfortunately, it needed to be a smash hit in order to convince the studio. You cannot tell me in full seriousness that, if you were the head of Disney animation, you would look at PatF's numbers compared to Frozen's and say "Yup, let's stick with how we made the movie that made way less money." It just doesn't make sense.

And no one is trying to give anyone false hope in Disney making another 2D animated film. It's almost a given at this point, though it obviously won't be soon. Just like 2D, 3D animation will eventually falter, and where will the studio go? Right back to what made them successful long ago. It just needs a long enough time to get the public craving for it again! Look at Jurrasic World, it made INSANE money because it had been so long since the public had a movie quite like it (or at least from the franchise). Give it 10 years, and a 2D movie could make gangbusters based on nostalgia alone. As long as it's any good, that is.

To sum up my rambling post, I much prefer the artistry of 2D animation over 3D, but I would never descredit 3D animation as an art form (as some are doing here). It requires just as much skill and effort, only it's a DIFFERENT style. That doesn't make it any more or less. To prefer 2D animation is fine, but just recognize it is a PREFERENCE, not an obvious indicator of quality. And do not blame the studio for wanting to make money. Anyone would do exactly the same thing were they in the same position. As long as quality films are being made, that's all I care about. We have the classic 2D movies in the highest quality imaginable to watch again and again, and I am confident it will make a return in some degree. We just have to be patient. In the mean time, we should continue to support animation, otherwise we may get none at all!

[2Disney4Ever]

I know I've said this before, but while I can have some optimism that 2D movies will return one day and learn to let bygones be bygones when it comes to the 3D ones, 2D movies have to come back again before I can be able to forgive CGI. As long as studios refuse to want anything to do with making them and they don't have a secure place in the industry anymore, I'm only going to keep thinking that computer animated movies are an obstacle and a threat to the future of hand-drawn animation, and will only hold strong resentment towards the medium because of it.

I agree that 3D movies are different, but that's all they should be. Different. They are no more superior to any other form of artistic expression, no matter how old (even if studios today want to believe that it is), and it doesn't give them the right to take the place of any other art form altogether. CGI is not, and should not be, the only animation in the world.

[Escapay]

It's no mystery why consumers wanted Pixar's brand of quality story telling and likable characters over Roseanne as a cow.

WIST!

As long as quality films are being made, that's all I care about. We have the classic 2D movies in the highest quality imaginable to watch again and again, and I am confident it will make a return in some degree. We just have to be patient. In the mean time, we should continue to support animation, otherwise we may get none at all!

I've missed you, lord-of-sith.



Albert

[Tangled]

They are no more superior to any other form of artistic expression, no matter how old (even if studios today want to believe that it is), and it doesn't give them the right to take the place of any other art form altogether. CGI is not, and should not be, the only animation in the world.

I'm just wondering, have you even given anime a chance? Because nobody believes that CGI is the only animation in the world. Thanks to the beauty of modern Ghibli movies, Little Witch Academia, Wolf Children, and Madoka Magica (one is not like the others), I decided to give keeping up with seasonal anime a try. As a huge fan of the traditional animation medium, I don't know what I would have done if I hadn't become addicted. Every season, there are dozens of vastly differing hand-drawn series to choose from. Just in 2015, there are already loads of stellar sources for your animation fix just from TV anime. Death Parade, Yuri Kuma Arashi, Rolling Girls, Hibike Euphonium (especially this. Actually, any Kyoto Animation show. I'm personally fond of Hyouka and Nichijou, both gorgeous examples of hand-drawn animation.), Kekkai Sensen, Snow White with the Red Hair, Charlotte, Gakkou Gurashi...there. I just named 8 completely different anime series that have aired in the past 8 months that all have good art and (hand-drawn) animation direction. I've been keeping up with all of it live since the beginning of 2015, and I'm loving it. Sure, there are lots of duds, but it's worth it for seeing all of the diamonds in the rough that pop up every new season. Hand-drawn is not dead.

Just a suggestion. Heck, not just to 2Disney4Ever, but to anyone who is craving quality hand-drawn animation and is lamenting that "2D is dead". It isn't. It's just that in the West, Disney (and other companies who made Disney ripoffs) dug their grave by over saturating the market with subpar, cheap hand-drawn content (namingly sequels) while Pixar and Dreamworks were fresh and positively recieved. I'm sure that the anime industry would die quickly too if every single studio only made horrible Ghibli ripoffs and Ghibli started making subpar sequels in the early 2000s.

[2Disney4Ever]

I'm just wondering, have you even given anime a chance?

Of course I've given anime a chance. In fact, I was practically obsessed with watching Pokémon in the late 90's/early 00's, and even now I still like to revisit some of the movies through Japanese fansubs. I just like good quality western style 2D animation more, like Looney Tunes and the kind that Disney used to be known for.

[Disney's Divinity]

Many here claim to not like Pixar's movies, and I'm calling shenanigans on that right now. With the exception of a few that have been released only recently, Pixar's films are universally loved

Well, that's nice... If it's worth mentioning, most people would agree with you considering the majority of posts/votes, so it's not like a hatred of 3D is the norm.

Also, I don't agree that "we" as Disney fans should support ever new Disney movie just because they happen to be a form of animation. I'm discriminating towards all movies, animated or live-action. If the movie looks awful, why would I want to support it? I did see Tangled in theaters once, and Frozen several times, BH6 and WIR not at all. And it turned out I didn't like Tangled or BH6 (when I finally saw it), so I'm happy I didn't support those two by buying the films (or seeing BH6 in theaters). Besides, they don't need my support, since they're being made because they rake in the money already. Not throwing away my coins to one of the richest corporations in the world, no thank you. *scampers off with purse clutched to chest*

[nomad2010]

I have to agree in the fact that Shrek was much more the issue than Toy Story. And oddly enough, I think had Toy Story been told in 2D it wouldn't have done well at all. I think why it has its place is because it was the first fully 3D film. However, there is another issue at play here...

The early 2000's and late 90's were full of hand drawn flops. Why? Because not one of those films were as masterful as the ones released during the early 90's. When you ask someone their favorite Disney movie it is usually one of those four. Why? Because they were well balanced and emotional and gosh darn it... They had Howard Ashman except for Lion King. Those movies were something special. And had this level of story telling and music been upheld, I don't think we'd have ever seen 2D fade away. In fact, I'm certain Princess and the Frog would've ushered in a new hand drawn Renaissance had it actually be a memorable film. But it just wasn't. It wasted too much time in the wrong places, had horrible music, and bland frog designs that were the main pint of the run time of the film. Everyone seems to focus on the medium but it's the script. Always was. Shrek had a smart witty script and it got attention. And in a time when hand drawn was the old way of doing things and all of those films lacked in the story telling department, of course it's going to catch on like wildfire that computer animation is the only way to go. Story is key. If it weren't, none of the Diamond Editions would sell any more. There wouldn't be a need for the vault. It's not about medium, it's about the quality of story and because of the financial failures associated with those poor stories that were 2D, it now has a bad reputation. Look at how huge Lilo and Stitch was. It could've been computer animation but wasn't. And it made a fortune. We need to stop arguing about what's better and start talking about why Disney can't recapture its forming storytelling and musical magic.

Would animation be better off had Toy Story never came along? Nah. Something else would've done the same thing eventually. At least Toy Story had heart whereas Shrek was somewhat grotesque at times. Animation was always going to develop. What's sad is that we lost an art form. It's like all artists saying "Oh, I've decided painting is outdated so I'm only going to sculpt now"... That's ridiculous to even comprehend. Hand drawn is warm and has flaws and shows human touches. Computer animation has a different feel. And there's nothing wrong with the that. What's most disappointing though is that there isn't more development in the look of computer animation. It all Looks so similar. One day, there will be painterly films and abstract ones and ones that look like Paperman. Why the studios are so scared to follow these other areas is beyond me. I just wish there was more innovation and less consumerism. And maybe that's the biggest downfall of Toy Story. It brought in a new wave of consumerism to movies. I mean it was a movie about TOYS. And what else would you sell to promote it other than toys? In the end, it would have always ended up this way. Two different mediums. It should never have meant the death of one though.