Disney Feature Animation Vs. Walt DisneyTelevision Animation

[DisneyHollywood]

Disney Feature Animation Vs. Walt DisneyTelevision Animation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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?

[Disneykid]

Woah woah woah. Do you realize who you sound like? You like sound Michael Eisner in reverse: slamming CGI and embracing 2-D animation. I'm sorry, but saying that CGI takes no talent is a *MAJOR* slap in the face to all of the animators at Pixar who give their all into their creations. Check out the bonus material on any one of their DVD's to see for yourself. Also, what do you mean be real plot and story? Are you saying CGI films are plotless? Are you honestly going to tell me that Pixar's Acadamy Award-nominated screenplays are inferior to all of the 2-D screenplays of the past few years only because they're for CGI films? That's amazingly shallow minded. What would you say, then, if the screenplay for Finding Nemo were attached to a traditionally animated project? Then would you praise it? I apologize for being blunt, but that's disgusting. These films (both traditional and CGI) are about the STORY and CHARACTERS. The medium used to bring those stories to life will not lift them up or bring them down. CGI will not bring down an amazing script. Likewise, traditional animation will not lift up a crappy one. Calling Eisner evil is hypocritical when you're thinking exactly like him, only with the opinions switched. This thread greatly disturbs me.

[chaychay102royal]

I know we all have our own opinions, but I think that the CGI and 2D animated films have their own pros and cons. One is not better than the other. They've both had their excellent, they've both had their "how the heck can you get this bad??"

[DisneyHollywood]

I can prove that Michael Esiner is Bad. He only wanted the money and to save the money. He only cared about him self. He stold a lot of money from the Walt Disney Company and messed it up. I can tell you lots of other things that he did that most people don't even know. And to call it real art/aniomation for CGI, never.

All you have to do is know the program, thr computer and have one tranitisonal animator draw it once on paper. Then they scan it in and some what draw over it and they mainly punch in the numbers to make the weith and lanth that they want. Thats it. And when you call it Animation, what animation? Who, CGI? Never! most of what was done in Traitisonal animation, is now gone. So there is no real point and it is not art, not a master pice and it makes real anomatiors loose their jobs. Do you know that when Disny and Pixar did a fil to gether, mot of the real work and true art was done by Disney animators? Yes. Pixar did not have much to do with it acpet to make it look CGI. If you have a really good Transitional Animation, it some times can make up for a bad story or story plot or story line. And yes, CGI does not have a real plot or reason for why a character does some thing. They too many times just out of no where do something or some thing that has nothing to do with the story. And what they plan on doing and and the reasons for it don't flow the story.

[Disneykid]

So you think a film like Beavis and Butthead Do America has more substance and story than a film like Monsters, Inc.? Umm, ok...and just WHERE are you getting the idea that Disney animators did all the work in Pixar's films? Disney's only involvement was distribution, marketing, and saying what Pixar wasn't allowed to do. Your viewpoint of what constitutes art is very narrow. Please enlighten us on how you know all that you know. Did your brother's girlfriend's cousin's ex-fiancee work for Disney? I don't even know why I'm bothering responding to you...

[DisneyHollywood]

So you think a film like Beavis and Butthead Do America has more substance and story than a film like Monsters, Inc.? Umm, ok...and just WHERE are you getting the idea that Disney animators did all the work in Pixar's films? Disney's only involvement was distribution, marketing, and saying what Pixar wasn't allowed to do. Your viewpoint of what constitutes art is very narrow. Please enlighten us on how you know all that you know. Did your brother's girlfriend's cousin's ex-fiancee work for Disney?


Well, Monsters was the only PIxar CGI I like or can call a favorite. Disney Animators do in fact do all or most of the work in a Pixar CGI animated film. Disney does the story, the character idea and develament, the plot and the music score, the voice picking and recorading and the back around and how it and everything should look. Pixar just does some little details for Disney so Disney can save money and not do that little part. I have and still do work for Disney. I also have friends and Family that work for them in Both California Studios and In Flordia. I also still do work for the company, I am seeing if I can get CGI to back off. It was Pixar that was inerfiering and brothing Disney and the real insperation and talent and animation. Pixar is like Disneys Own little push button do what ever they want push overs. They take credit fir what is really Disney. Shame on Pixar. I also am friend with some Disney Animators and some of them got lad off or lost their jobs to your Dumb Pixar CGI a nd getting ride and pushing aside real art and magic.

[Zoltack]

Hey, hey now lets not start this again with the girlfriend who's 26 and knows about sequels and what not.

I think 2D is better than CGI but I not saying that CGI plan out flat sucks. I like Toy Story, Incredibles and Monsters Inc. as much as I like TLK and BATB. I mean there's some things that are either hard or impossible to do with 2D than what you can do with CGI. So actually it's hard to say which is better.

[DisneyHollywood]

I think 2D is better than CGI


Good for you. It is better. I mean, CGI does not totolly sucks, thow it is not better and it is not as good, even the characters and their personallty and the story and plot are not good. CGI is not art or Animation, It is a moveing video game, and I hate it. Leave Pixar CGI out of our animation and true art.

[crystaldragon]

You know I have been reading these debates for a while, and it seems to me (or at least the way that I feel is) that the animation style doesn't matter what matters most is the STORY!!! If there is not a good story, it doesn't matter what style of animation it is or how good the visuals are nothing feels right. I think that people should focus more on the story that is trying to be told and not just the animation style. But that is just my humble opinion.

[CJ]

You know I have been reading these debates for a while, and it seems to me (or at least the way that I feel is) that the animation style doesn't matter what matters most is the STORY!!! If there is not a good story, it doesn't matter what style of animation it is or how good the visuals are nothing feels right. I think that people should focus more on the story that is trying to be told and not just the animation style. But that is just my humble opinion.

Well said crystaldragon. That is exactly how I feel. The story is way more important to me than the medium it is presented in.

Also, welcome to the forum crystaldragon and DisneyHollywood

[Miss Jo]

I must say I agree with DisneyHollywood. It may sound narrow-minded, but for some reason I think CGI movies don't have the magic that traditionally animated Disney classics do. Computers can seriously unromanticize a movie. Makes it look so. . . computerized.

[Isidour]

I like more the 2D just because it´s the one with I´m used to see.
I have seen a lot of good 3D and CGI animations but even they´re very realistic they are no match for the 2D.

Maybe because doesn´t matter how modern is the animation, or impressive, the 2D have more fluid movements and swifts detalis

[2099net]

What does this rant have to do with Walt Disney Feature Animation or Walt Disney Television Animation? Especially as the bulk of the complaint seems to be about Pixar?

OK, so WDFA are only doing CGI films from now on. Well, that could change. Dinosaur was supposed to usher in a new age of movie making magic, but it didn't. If a few films from WDFA flop who knows what will happen?

As for Walt Disney Television Animation (which is now distinct from DisneyToon who create most of the animated sequels) are you saying you prefer the limited animation of something like Kim Possible to Pixar's films? Are you saying Kim Possible has more skill and money behind it? I don't understand.

[DisneyHollywood]

You go Miss Jo, and Isidour, you both are right. And it more then just good story telling. You have to have Traitisonal animation too. And the storys from the CGI's have not been good acept the Monsters inc. Other wise none. And I am saying that the Animated Tv showa on disney channel are better then Pixar and the style is better. they make them look better and draw them better. They look real, not looking fake like a computer.Member


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I must say I agree with DisneyHollywood. It may sound narrow-minded, but for some reason I think CGI movies don't have the magic that traditionally animated Disney classics do. Computers can seriously unromanticize a movie. Makes it look so. . . computerized.

Back to top


Isidour

[PatrickvD]

geez, what is everyone's problem? Just be patient. The CGI overload crapfest is about to begin. It's "Open Season", get it

[DisneyHollywood]

What do you mean by that? I want CGI good and gone. It has no place in our Animation., If Walt Disney were alive, he would stop this and say it is not art. I want Traitisonal back. Get lost Pixar.

[2099net]

What do you mean by that? I want CGI good and gone. It has no place in our Animation., If Walt Disney were alive, he would stop this and say it is not art. I want Traitisonal back. Get lost Pixar.

How is CGI any-less art than Animatronic pirates?

[ichabod]

What do you mean by that? I want CGI good and gone. It has no place in our Animation., If Walt Disney were alive, he would stop this and say it is not art. I want Traitisonal back. Get lost Pixar.

I very sincerely doubt he would. Disney was a visionary new technology thrilled him. He would give every new technique a try and would have adored the progress of CGI! He would probably at the forefront of it if he were still with us! Granted he would have kept 2D alive, but he would have embraced CGI. The Disney Studios under the helm of Disney were always at the forefont of Hollywood, he had to have the newest and best and most appropriate tools available to make his movies! If there was a technological advance, you can bet 9 times out of 10 it would have been one of his movies that featured it first!

[DisneyHollywood]

CGI is not real, lt takes knowing the computer program and the computer. It is nit art and it takes the real animation away. It takes the talented animators out and only has a compouter. It looks fake. It puts a computer on the animation desk and for what, to look like morden day claymation? It looks crapy.; If it were not for the ceo of Apple Computers and Him founding Pixar, CGI would not have this high point, and Disney Traitional Animation would still go strong and reigen. It would still be done at disney. And real animators would not loose their jobs to so called Pixar Animators, well their not. What a joke. Animation is an art, not a tecknolgey or indistery. An art.

[ichabod]

Animation is an art, not a tecknolgey or indistery. An art.

Allow me to quote from the immortal word of Marcel Duschamp.



What is art?