End of Disney animated films?

[Sunset Girl]

I read this thread with a heavy heart.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know a whole heck of a lot about the politics of a big business like what our beloved Disney corporation has turned into, so I won't even get into the whole Eisner/Roy/board member blame debate. All I do know is that the general public has shifted its views many times on what they want in an animated movie, and the animation industry has to cater to what they can only guess the public wants in order to survive.

I thank God for the Incredibles, I really do. Why? CGI or not, it was a huge success despite the fact that it isn't following the pattern set by Shrek. Now don't get me wrong, I happen to love Shrek, and I'm not planning on starting a huge debate over whether Shrek is a good movie or not. All I'm saying is that I believe Shrek has set a trend. It's almost as if the public expects most animated films to not only be CGI, but to be chocked full of sly adult humor and poke as much fun as they possibly can to pop culture. I'm so happy that films like Finding Nemo and the Incredibles did not have to resort to that.

So we have our proof that the public can accept and even love a CGI film that has nothing to do with following the Shrek pattern.

But what does the public really expect from Disney, anyway? No, not us animation/Disney geeks (and I say that as affectionately as possible), I'm talking about the kids and the soccer moms and the birthday shopping grandparents. Do they understand the animation industry? Do they even care? No! I don't think they want Disney to churn out more Shreks, they hold a different standard there. All they want is to be entertained or buy that entertainment for their children and families, and rightfully so. It's a given that the name Disney is generally accepted as the name brand with the good housekeeping seal of approval.

The people don't want to head to the theaters for a film that looks weird like Treasure Planet! They don't want to see something bold and experimental like Atlantis! They don't want something as ambitious and as grown-up as Hunchback! They want more Little Mermaids and Jungle Books! They want more funny talking animals and princesses looking for true love! I often wonder if they got too ambitious for their own good, alienating their core audience.

I feel like Disney needs to get back to basics when it comes to 2-D, but I wonder if that chance will ever come. I predict that one day the public will tire of CGI and Disney will be there to bring back "traditional" hand-drawn animation. Heh. If they have anyone left that can still animate by hand.

How horribly sad it must have been for the animators working there at the very end. You could easily argue about the inkers and painters that have been replaced by computers and that no one wept for them. And the truth is that I don't really know the circumstances of those losses of jobs, except that some of them survived as CAPS programmers. What I do know is that animators were being dropped left and right. If you're not next, what about your mentor, your friend down the hall, your desk?!! They were selling off their desks faster than they could lay off animators! It was supposed to be a fun, creative enviournment, but imagine having to work at place like that with such an uncertain future and be required to do it with a smile. Of course, they had the option of adapting to CGI, but the time limit to do so for most of them was unbelievably unrealistic.

So I don't know what to think or feel. I was chatting with a Disney fan earlier today and he said (with a yawn) that the shift to 3-D was inevitible. Even he had lost the faith in 2-D and the thought of it just breaks my heart.

I believe there is room for both, I really do. If only the Disney execs would've stepped back and just let the artists do what they do best. I believe the public doesn't want 2-D to die. It's very much alive on television and home video. . . they just need a reason to seek it out in the theater.

[Solid Liquid Fox]

It's is sad especially for the kind of people that lose their jobs over this. Let's face it, you gotta be somebody pretty special to choose to do animation and give life to an animated feature. That is a gift.

I think adults more than kids have chosen the CG animation over the traditional one. Why? the characters look more "real" and thanks to Pixar most CG animated films are associated with something both kids and adults can enjoy because of how well written the movies are. Kids don't care what the movie looks like for the most part as long as is fun. And I mean kids, not young adults.

Yeah, Pixar in a way is part of the problem. Not for the innovative technology which is great but because how good the quality of their storytelling is in 90% of their films. That's why CG is "better" and 2D is being left behind.

If you want quality 2D animation you may have to look the route of anime. That's what I did. Japan still believes (and I agree) that the 2D medium is very much alive and you can still do great things with it if the story is there. Cowboy Bebop, Ghost in the Shell, all of those Miyazaki films Disney got a hold of for distribution over here...they are all example that the magic is there if the talent is there.

Regarding Disney and their venture to CG animation at the expense of traditional 2D: I think they are missing the point. Disney is good at creating endearing characters that break into a catchy song that kids can sing along with. Those same characters also tap inside the inner child of the parents that take the kids to the movies. Tickets sales go up. Disney makes money. Endearing characters. That's all it is.

Endearing characters: Mickey, Donald and the other icons, Little Mermaid and Sebastian, Aladdin and the Genie, Bambi, Snow White, Zimba and his pals, all of Pixar's stuff, Beauty and the Beast, Pooh Bear and friends...you know what I mean.

Missed the mark by being easily forgettable but recognizable because they are Disney: Pocahontas, Stitch, Tarzan, Home on the Range, Emperor's New Groove, Treasure Planet...if they did not have the Disney push to remind you that they made it or if Dreamworks or Fox or whoever had done it you would have forgotten about these and the DVD would be in the clearance stack with Sinbad, Stallion and Titan A.E.

THAT is the Disney formula. Not CG animation. Endearing characters.

[Escapay]

I only got to page 2 before I saw I have less than 5 minutes left in my break, so if I repeat anything on page 3 or 4, I'm sorry...

2D is not dead, but if Walt Disney were still around, it would not be a high priority for him anymore. With every new medium he took in, he had less interest (and understandably less time) in the previous. Mickey Mouse gave way to Silly Symphonies, which gave way to animated features, which gave way to Live-Action movies, then he spent more time focused on the park. So eventually, if Walt were still around (granted, he'd be 103 now), he'd tackle CGI, perhaps he'd have pioneered it.

Escapay

[Sunset Girl]

I only got to page 2 before I saw I have less than 5 minutes left in my break, so if I repeat anything on page 3 or 4, I'm sorry...

2D is not dead, but if Walt Disney were still around, it would not be a high priority for him anymore. With every new medium he took in, he had less interest (and understandably less time) in the previous. Mickey Mouse gave way to Silly Symphonies, which gave way to animated features, which gave way to Live-Action movies, then he spent more time focused on the park. So eventually, if Walt were still around (granted, he'd be 103 now), he'd tackle CGI, perhaps he'd have pioneered it.

I agree with just about everything you say here, except that Walt did feel he owed a great debt to what his animators and other artists did for him. It was documented that wanted to keep traditional animation alive in the times that it seemed it was in danger. We can only speculate on what he might have been doing now and how different the company would be because of it. I am certain that he would have loved CGI and would have wanted to explore its potential, but I have the opinion that he'd still be fighting to keep 2-D alive.

[JRawkSteady]

I wan't trying to make you look like a bad guy goof, I just feel like if we don't do something, the old disney will disappear into the archives like self-directed indie film or freedom of speech has.

To those who agree, do you think there is something we can do about this as "the people?"

[goofy108]

I wan't trying to make you look like a bad guy goof, I just feel like if we don't do something, the old disney will disappear into the archives like self-directed indie film or freedom of speech has.

To those who agree, do you think there is something we can do about this as "the people?"

Change is diffiuclt. But Disney had to make an important decision. They were loosing audiences to CGI films. They were desperate. Maybe once they get their act together they will bring back 2D animation. But for now, this looks like the new deal.

As for "the people", there isnt much we can do. They need to realize that it isnt the animation that makes the difference, its the story and the characters that counts and brings in the audiences.

[DreamerQ18]

Wow after getting through the past 4 pages of post my eyes hurt so if my typeing is bit a out of quack sorry.....

I am really dissapointed with Disney going in the whole CGI direction I mean I love my 2-D movies I think they are wonderful and real art that takes a lot of time, but I do love my Computer aniemated movies. So after saying all this I guess you could say over time and being here in the forum for so long my opinion as some what evolved. I decided I am not going to blame anyone although I still dont like Eisner that wont change (I am glad he is leaving) I just think that its a matter of times being the 21st century and all computers are big part of how we run the world now so now it only seems natural that the movies are made that way. I guess my only hope now is that it is just a Big phaze everyone is going through becasue its the trend in thing todo and then that one day down the road people get borde and will want to "try something new" In reality it wont be new just something old being brough back like bellbotoms.

Eventually though I would hope to see one CGI movie and one 2-D animation movie (not like the sequals and stuff that we get a year but a new story all on its own) produce by Disney or every other year that way each production team has sufficent time to come up with great story lines and everything is kept fresh! Keep the Audience on itsd toes and intrigued. I know wishful thinking but hey who knows it could happen .

[Lars Vermundsberget]

I only got to page 2 before I saw I have less than 5 minutes left in my break, so if I repeat anything on page 3 or 4, I'm sorry...

2D is not dead, but if Walt Disney were still around, it would not be a high priority for him anymore. With every new medium he took in, he had less interest (and understandably less time) in the previous. Mickey Mouse gave way to Silly Symphonies, which gave way to animated features, which gave way to Live-Action movies, then he spent more time focused on the park. So eventually, if Walt were still around (granted, he'd be 103 now), he'd tackle CGI, perhaps he'd have pioneered it.

I agree with just about everything you say here, except that Walt did feel he owed a great debt to what his animators and other artists did for him. It was documented that wanted to keep traditional animation alive in the times that it seemed it was in danger. We can only speculate on what he might have been doing now and how different the company would be because of it. I am certain that he would have loved CGI and would have wanted to explore its potential, but I have the opinion that he'd still be fighting to keep 2-D alive.

Both of you, this makes a lot of sense.

Disney's animated shorts were made on a regular basis up until 1956, but the pioneering efforts in the shorts were pretty much made by the late 1930s. Then came Snow White and Walt put his heart in the animated features for a number of years. Eventually it became clear that he wasn't able to achieve quite what he wanted with animation, so he went into live-action filmmaking, television and Disneyland. Towards the end of his life he started on a big project in Florida and I think it's fair to say that he had visions there that have yet to materialize.

The point is that Walt was always ready to go further. If he'd still been around at the age of 103, who knows what we'd have seen during the past four decades.

But my guess is that traditional animation would not have been abandoned. Walt kept it alive during his lifetime, although his attention in later years was indeed pointed elsewhere most of the time. Not until after Walt was there talk about putting the animated features on the shelf, as far as I know.

But Walt, apparently, always used to bring back the phrase: "It all started with a mouse". So the tradition probably wouldn't have been forgotten.

[magicalwands]

Could this have been dodged if Pixar stayed with Disney and Disney could just keep making Animated Movies and Pixar just works on the 3-D Animation movies ?

Sigh...I don't know but maybe it was a good idea for Pixar to leave Disney. I don't like the DVDs saying "Disney Presents a PIXAR Film" when it could say "Walt Disney Pictures and Pixar Animation Studios Presents...". I guess I'm just one person who is too picky.

[JRawkSteady]

Could this have been dodged if Pixar stayed with Disney and Disney could just keep making Animated Movies and Pixar just works on the 3-D Animation movies ?

Sigh...I don't know but maybe it was a good idea for Pixar to leave Disney. I don't like the DVDs saying "Disney Presents a PIXAR Film" when it could say "Walt Disney Pictures and Pixar Animation Studios Presents...". I guess I'm just one person who is too picky.

Disney and Pixar should have stayed together, but Disney animators didn't work on them at all...Disney Management only had little say as to what the storylines would be. It was really a Pixar film. Disney is just production and distribution. So it really is "Disney Presents a PIXAR Film." Anyway, Iger already got Pixar back. (which is a very very good thing) John Lasseter said that they would LOVE to do business with Disney as long as Eisner is out of the picture. I have the direct quote somewhere.

[Christian]

Iger already got Pixar back.

It's looking hopeful but it's not definite yet.

[DisneyHollywood]

SO I am wondering if Pixar Animation Studios will take over Disney Traditional Animation, or will The Walt Disney Studios and Feature Animation choose to do only CGI Pixar style computer Animation?

I hear that the Studio might not do any more Traditional Animation! Why?
In my own opinion, I feel it looks better than the Pixar style CGI Comouter Animation!!

And for the recoard, any one who said that Walt Disney Studios closed their Traditional Animation Studio for Computer or Pixar, was wrong.

What happened is Micheal Eisner wanted more money, and since he could save and earn more money with CGI, He and some other person form Feature Animation decided to close the Walt Disney Studios Flordia Location and move the best Traditional Animators to The Burbank California Studios to work there, and then do more computer animation in Burbank CA. So after that, on thoese bases- they did not need the other studio any more. for it was being done in CA instead, and 2ndly they wanted to do more CGI animation., And feurther more, It was Esiner that made Pixar leave, and the new CEO is a great guy and a better one then Esiner. He does care and cares more, about gust, animation, and the company. Not the money like eisner or like some of you think this new guy does!!

The only reason why CGI is doing better is that Too many people who are from the CGI and XBox generation, think it is animation or art. It is not real animation or art. And all you have to do to be a CGI animator is be a computer geak. CGI does not take any talent, or real Talent like Tranitional Animation does. I want the Quilty to come back and to have a real plot and reason for what they do and what goes on and to go with the story.

Why is Disney Channel the only one doing Tranitional Animation and no CGI any where , thoes none in the theater and CGI everywhere?

[Sunset Girl]

The only reason why CGI is doing better is that Too many people who are from the CGI and XBox generation, think it is animation or art. It is not real animation or art. And all you have to do to be a CGI animator is be a computer geak. CGI does not take any talent, or real Talent like Tranitional Animation does.

You make some interesting points in your post but I'm afraid I can't agree with what was said in the above quote.

While it's true that you had to be a computer geek in the early days to be a CGI animator, there's always been an art to it. In fact, the problem they had in the early days was finding a computer programmer that understood art, or finding an artist that understood computers.

Animation has been and always will be all about "the illusion of life," as Frank and Ollie put it. In its purest form, animation simply means "to give life to." For CGI animators, the computer is a tool in a similar way that the pencil is to traditional animators. But to be honest, there's more similarities between CGI and stop-motion than there is between CGI and traditional. And even stop-motion is a medium that an animator must artistically work through to find the emotions of the characters and stories. It doesn't matter what medium you're talking about, the animator has to find a way to make his characters believable in order to pull it off. And that, my friend, is art.

While I'm the among the first to point out that hand-drawn animation takes a certain type of extraordinary talent, I feel that CGI animators often don't get enough credit because people believe that the computers do all the work. If only! It takes an extremely talented person to do either.

[DisneyHollywood]

It takes more time and talent to do Trasitional Animation as appose to CGI. CGI is not an art. It never will be. It takes real animators jobs away and it take about no time at all to do it. It looks like a video game. It does not look real. It is dumb. Trasitional Animation is better. It takse talent and a growing talent and passion and insperation to do Trasitional animation. Not CGI like Pixar. They are paid to play with a computer, not to do true animation that is from your mind and heart. It does not have the insperation and wow behind it like Tranitisonal has. Thoes People form CGI like pixar hardly draw anything. They don't do much. In true , real and masterpice of animation, I say that CGI is a waste of true guineus and art. It is good, thow not over the top better. And it is an art ont an indstry or tecnoagliy. CGI is runing animation. If Walt Disney were alive, He would not alow it or at least it it over power it. We don/t need CGI, or lat least not have it over power or kick Traitisonal out of ther way.

[Sunset Girl]

Well, it's a free country and you're allowed to believe what you like. . .

Still, I question your knowledge on the process of computer animation when you say it doesn't take any time at all. In fact, I find that statement rather insulting to the fine people that work so hard and dedicate a part of their lives to creating these films. Do you have any clue how long it takes to do a simple scene? And I'm not even counting the sets, the renderings, the clothes, the hair, the layouts, etc., but the actual animation of the characters. And to say that the animators don't do a lot? Do you think that the computers do it all for them? And that doesn't even consider all the hand-drawn and hand-sculpted preproduction work, which not only includes storyboards, but character designs and maquettes, color keys, and other things that they have to go through before the animation can even begin. Just like in a traditionally animated film. Please be sure to check out some of the bonus features on the Pixar DVD's for a little more insight.

Both hand-drawn and CGI have their strengths and weaknesses, and if you agree that characters and story are more important than the media, why argue that CGI is inferior?

And this is coming from someone that was very skeptical of CGI from the very beginning. I mean, I was so used to the idea that the computers could only handle technical and mechanical things in animation. I didn't want to warm up to the idea of character animation in CGI, but I did. I didn't want to believe the characters from Toy Story way back in 1995 would have any life to them, but I walked out of the theater a believer. And I especially didn't think that CGI could carry a whole full-length feature, but I was wrong. And even though the technology has come a long way since then, the original Toy Story still holds its own as a great and beloved film that the entire family can enjoy.

I stand by my earlier statement that I feel there is room for both. I have been an artist myself and have always appreciated the art that goes into animation; that's probably why I'm so in love with 2-D. But there's a lot to appreciate about 3-D as well if you know where to look.

But like I said, it's a free country, and you can have any opinion you want. I whole-heartedly agree with you that all great animation does indeed come from the mind and heart, but it doesn't necessarily need to be done with a pencil.

[Escapay]

While essentially agree with everything Sunset Girl just said, I'd like to offer my own insight as well.

It takes more time and talent to do Trasitional Animation as appose to CGI. CGI is not an art. It never will be.

It did take more time to do traditional animation as opposed to CGI, but nowadays they could easily be done in the same amount of time. Look at the traditional animation of Kim Possible (albeit not a very good example). It's traditional hand-drawn, but animated via computers IIRC. A merging of both, I guess.

And to say CGI is not an art and never will be is just...well, you might as well say traditional animation is not an art and never will be. After all, it's just people drawing 30,000 pictures that when moving at 24 pictures a second gives the illusion of movement. Art? Hah. The Sistine Chapel, with the ornate and detailed paintings on the ceiling? Anyone can do that, why bother calling it art? A lump of marble chipped and chiseled to look like David? Bah, it's still a lump of marble. People find art in nearly everything or nothing. If you don't find art in CGI, well that's fine. I can find art in a penny laying on the ground next to a piece of gum. Or perhaps in the wonderful spectacle of a sunset over the Cinderella Castle at Magic Kingdom. Heck, my left hand as I'm typing could be considered art. Art is what you feel in your heart and mind when you look at something beyond its practical purposes. That's why so many useless things are called art.

It takes real animators jobs away and it take about no time at all to do it.

If it takes no time at all to do it, I wouldn't mind if you made an 80 minute CGI movie for us all. After all, it's not real work or anything, the computer must be doing everything for you right? It has to read your mind and see how you want the character to look, move, and such. I mean, you can't just tell the computer "Hey, draw Joe Bob walking down a street and picking up a flower then throwing a brick at a passing car".

It looks like a video game. It does not look real.

Since when does any animation, be it CGI or tradition, have to look real? One of the main points of animation is to see how well you can capture reality without letting it be reality. Walt Disney himself did not strive for "real" in his early animated pictures. He preferred to have his artists draw caricatures of what was real in the early days. Where else can you find a cow that plays Turkey in the Straw after eating the sheet music?

It is dumb.

That's your opinion and I'll leave it at that.

Trasitional Animation is better. It takse talent and a growing talent and passion and insperation to do Trasitional animation.

And I guess a no-talent Joe Bob from Lidsville can just walk into Pixar and say "Hey, let me have a shot at this" and they'll let him produce a blockbuster like Toy Story.

Not CGI like Pixar. They are paid to play with a computer, not to do true animation that is from your mind and heart. It does not have the insperation and wow behind it like Tranitisonal has.

Every thought has to come from somewhere, either your mind or your heart. Everything you see in a movie originated as a thought by somebody. THAT is animation. Taking an idea, be it talking toys or the search for a clownfish, or the secret life of monsters, and using whatever elements you have to interpret it for others to see, be it CGI OR traditional OR live-action.

Thoes People form CGI like pixar hardly draw anything. They don't do much. In true , real and masterpice of animation, I say that CGI is a waste of true guineus and art.

They hardly draw anything? I'm guessing we're going back to the "Hey computer! Read my mind and show me what I think such-and-such looks like!". There are things called storyboards and concept art that originate before they even get to the CGI animation. It's called pre-production. Hardly done with the computer, but with *gasp* hand drawings! That must mean they DO draw things! I truly truly advise that you watch some of the bonus features that deal with this on any of the Pixar DVDs.

It is good, thow not over the top better. And it is an art ont an indstry or tecnoagliy. CGI is runing animation.

The best I could get out of this is "it is good, though not over-the-top-better" and "CGI is ruining animation". Um...CGI is a form of animation, just as 2D is a form of animation, just as claymation is a form of animation. Animation isn't just moving pictures.

If Walt Disney were alive, He would not alow it or at least it it over power it.

We really don't know what Walt would do if he were alive now. But he was always embracing and pioneering the new forms of movie-making (just look at the wonders he did with 2D animation!). He would have embraced CGI, while still keeping 2D alive.

We don/t need CGI, or lat least not have it over power or kick Traitisonal out of ther way.

We don't need CGI, we don't need traditional, in a sense we really don't need any type of movie form. But they offer us entertainment, and it's more of an indulgence than a necessity. CGI isn't kicking traditional out of the way. It's just that next-door neighbour: Love 'em or hate 'em, you're stuck with them.

As Sunset Girl pointed out, I really think you should view the bonus features on Pixar DVDs, or at least read up on the subjects before you start trashing it so. But it's your opinion, and I always learned that you can't change a person's opinion, just your opinion on the person, and that change comes from within, and all those other cliches. So if you don't like CGI, good for you. I'm a fan of it, not because it's a technological wonder, but because Pixar is good at both the animation and the story.

Escapay[/quote]

[Zoltack]

WOW writting a book or something. Just kidding I still stand on what I said earlier on this thread. I forgot what that was.

[Escapay]

WOW writting a book or something. Just kidding I still stand on what I said earlier on this thread. I forgot what that was.

It's on page one, and I bolded the part I really liked:

Well, not only that but it's easier and faster to animate using computers. And in some cases computer animation looks better than hand drawn animation. If you ever watch South Park, like the very first episodes, the characters were made using constuction paper which, had different shapes and sizes. It looked pretty crappy. Now they use computers in the new episodes and they look a whole lot better than they did before. But they make sure it still looks like the same when they used constuction paper.
However, all of the magic from Disney films (especially the classics) is that they were hand drawn. I mean you can't get the same effect of CGI animaition than you get with hand drawn animation.

Escapay

[Lars Vermundsberget]

CGI is not an art. It never will be.

I can't say I totally disagree.

But I can't say I quite agree, either.

80 years ago the same thing would be said about "traditional" animation. Drawing cartoons was far from being considered an art. It was pretty much the lowest of occupations in the film industry - if it would be considered part of the film industry at all.

[JRawkSteady]

Although it takes a lot of talent to create a CGI, once teh characters and backgrounds are created, it's just point and click from there...believe me, I know. I use it every day.

And the Traditional Animators all threatened to quit when Roy was fired, that's why Eisner closed the studios.