Well, I don't approve of what's happening at Disney. How could I? But you have to look at this from a business point of view. It does make sense.
At the moment CGI animation is still new. And most of the work of CGI has been in creating digital images for special effects in live action movies. As a result the bulk of CGI development has focused on creating photorealistic rendering. Even something like Toy Story and Monsters, Inc. has the [software] emphasis on photorealism; shadows, reflections, transparancies etc. It's only now that some of the smaller animation houses are experimenting with creating CGI animations that are abstract and do not lean towards photorealism. Disney too seem to have something other than photorealism in mind with some of their upcoming CGI features.
If Disney can get CGI to look like drawn animation (which seems to be one of their goals - see the Chicken Little information, plus their original plans for Bambi II and Dumbo II) why would they need to go back to handdrawn animation again? Make a cartoon that looks handdrawn in CGI and the character models etc can be used in anything from sequels, theme park attraction movies, television series to adverts with little time and effort simply by reusing existing models and animation.
There's a reason that Shrek 2 is expected to take less than half the time and cost to produce than the orginal Shrek did - even though it will have more characters and locations (although factor in the inflated salary for the voice actor 'stars' and Shrek 2 will probably turn out more expensive
) They already used the models, animation cycles and sets on the Shrek 4-D attraction. And should Dreamworks ever want to do a Shrek television series, one could be made close to the quality of the films for a reasonable price (ignoring the voices).
There's other advantages too - create a model of a human and motion capture can do the bulk of the animation. And not just for body movement either. Disney are already (reportedly) working on a motion capture system for human faces more advanced than any existing system. People may complain about this, but it's only the 21st century version of rotoscoping (I know Disney rarely rotoscoped in a tradidional sense, but the animation was heavily influenced by live action references). So, as well as being cheaper, it also means the animation is faster then having to draw and photograph/scan each individual frame of movement.
So Disney's thinking is create a human character model, motion capture the movement and expressions. Tweak the animation slightly to make it fit the apperance of the film and output the final render to look handdrawn. One handdrawn looking animation created at a fraction of the time and cost of traditional animation (in theory - once the technology is ready).
Disney as a company seemed to be making lots of decisions based on short term thinking, but I actually think that this is a decision made with the long term in mind.
Of course, they're still doing it wrong. We all know Disney takes 2 steps backwards with every step forwards
It's idiotic to shut down their handdrawn feature animation departments while the technology to achieve their goal is still being perfected. They should release a mixture of handdrawn and CGI films over the next few years to test the waters for both forms of animation. Convincing CGI that looks handdrawn could be years away. I'd like to see them continue to make traditional features, while using new theatrical shorts to experiment with CGI rendering.
I also think all of their partnership deals with CGI houses are doing Disney no favours what-so-ever. It just makes them look sad and desperate. Disney no longer leads; it follows. And even then it only follows with the help of others. I'm sure Walt must be spinning in his grave now.
It's easy to get worked up about this. I have been (and still am to a certain extent), but the more I research the issue the more and more I can understand Disney's thinking. Does that make it right? Of course not.
Ultimately should Disney pull it off does it really matter? If they can produce movies that look 100% handdrawn (but aren't) does it affect our enjoyment when watching the movies to any extent?
Also, with all the partnership deals going on at the MouseHouse at the moment I have to question if these will be good or bad for the Disney. They really should concentrate on moving Walt Disney Feature Animation to all CGI (if that is indeed what they want to do) and ignore all these partnerships - I'm convinced the partnerships will only lead to trouble in the future.
