a theory on the decline of 2D animation

[disneyfella]

this is really deep coming from me, but perhaps the reason why 2D has become something of the past, is because it's become a dime a dozen. literally sometimes getting 2 count them TWO disney animated films a year. not to mention all the other companies now releasing animated films like they were nothing. when walt was alive, his package features (which came out once a year) never did extremely well at the box office. i think that with the "renaissance disney" (i.e. little mermaid, aladdin, beauty and the beast, lion king, etc.) people just got tired of going every year to see another one and stopped going recently. i know we like all the disney animated films and can appreciate them for what they are, but perhaps they aren't making as much money because there are so many more of them out there. it's not competition, but the demand is down. why pay to go see ANOTHER disney animated film when i just took the damn kids to see one a couple months ago. you know? i dunno maybe this is completely off, but i feel it is likely that CGI may lose its effectiveness and appeal if they keep getting released once or twice a year. does this make sense to anyone, or am i just taking up webspace?


i apologize if i am............

[EarthX]

It's possible, but I think it just comes down to not enough creativity.

Almost everyone who tried it kept using the "Disney formula" that animated features had to be musicals (although Disney did finally get away from this one).

That is what started to bore me with the features.

Another is surely that most Americans can't figure out how a cartoon can be anything but "G." That limits the plot possibilities big-time.

That's why Japan had Akira 20 years ago and we just got a quality "adult" film in South Park.

[indianajdp]

"Another" 2D Disney film?

There were two in 2002, and two in 2000.
Before that I don't know that there were ever two released in the same year. As for competition, I belive Warner and Universal were doing animated films in the 1980s so there has been constant competition (and plenty of film releases) for at least the last twenty years.

I honestly don't think they (traditional 2D animated films) have become a dime a dozen. I think once we (the general animated audience) got a taste of what is possible with CGI we started demanding more from the studios. Pixar toiled in the background for such a long time dveloping and refining their product through shorts and burst onto the scene at exactly the right time. It was bound to happen, given the strides we've made in computer technology even in the last ten years. I think the bottom line is that it's quicker, cheaper, and takes less man-power to make a CGI film and all of that should equate into higher profit margins.

[Jens]

Ever heard of capital letters? Uhm I don't think the 2d thing is the problem. As Disney really started thinking about money money money after Walt's death they have been developing movies like crazy. My mom said to me that when a Disney movie was released in the old days (yes, the classics) it was a really big event and everyone looked forward to that moment they got to see it in the cinema (heck, I even saw bambi in the cinema!). Times evolve and people get a lot more frustrated when they have to pay every month to see a 2d film of the same kind but just with different characters and a different story. Ok, it's a little roughly said but it all comes to that. People want to see something special, something really fantastic that everyone reminds after seeing the movie. Disney has failed in this since the Lion King in my opinion (in 2d of course). Now that Disney has found a new way to sell, they will keep hiring 3d studios like pixar and make it a habbit of those studios to be the new walt disney studios. It will start small, but you'll see nothing else in the future. As long as it sells! If people want to see some classics, they will just get it noticed by not buying the 3d animated movies. Then Disney will follow the crowd and go for 2d again. Don't you see? It's nothing about repetive disney movies in 2d, it's all about the big money. And it will always be from now on, no stopping it.

[Maerj]

Another is surely that most Americans can't figure out how a cartoon can be anything but "G." That limits the plot possibilities big-time.

That's why Japan had Akira 20 years ago and we just got a quality "adult" film in South Park.

Heavy Metal was released here in 1981 and Fritz the Cat (Rated X) was released in the US in 1972, although it would most likely only be an R by today's standrads.

[2099net]

I think the reason is nothing to do with storytelling, ill-concieved advertising or non-musicals.

Firstly, to blame bad storytelling people have to go to see the film in the first place! Nobody can blame Treasure Planet's "failure" on bad storytelling as nobody saw it! Plus, Jungle Book 2 - a film with "bad storytelling" did better box office.

Secondly, Advertising. Sure, some advertising sucks. I do think all of the trailers for Atlantis are poor. But so what, lots of films have poor trailers. I just downloaded the US Holes trailer the other day, and while I loved the film, the trailer wouldn't make me want to see it. Brother Bear has a good trailer. Will it mean more people go to see it? I doubt it.

Non-Musicals. Well, while the most popular Disney films may be musicals, none of the Pixar films or Shrek were musicals. Oh, and South Park: BLU was an awesome musical - but that turned people off (mainly because they just wanted to hear swearing and fart jokes, but I digress)

So why are traditional animated films failing? Personally I think it's because the general public thinks 2D animation has peaked. To the eyes of Johnny Public nothing can be done to improve the art form. Unlike the golden age of Disney animated films where each new film pushed animation further as an art form. Look at the first Mickey Mouse cartoon and compare it to the last on the 1st B/W Treasure Volume "Mickey's Service Station". It's only seven years, but MSS has much better art, animation and storytelling than Plane Crazy.

Of course, the public is wrong. There is no limit to handdrawn animation because anything you can imagine, you can draw.

Now compare handdrawn animation to CGI - CGI is still advancing at a frightening rate. See a new CGI film and your almost certain to see something new, the art form pushed a little futher. Now, finally, animation houses are starting to experiment with abstract rendering too - this will make CGI films look even more distinctive and exciting (While Pixar, for example, create "Cartoon" characters - all the rendering is photorealistic, with emphasis on shadows, reflections and real-world physics). Shrek 2 will look much better than Shrek. Toy Story 3 (should they actually make it) will look much better then Toy Story 2 (which looked better than Toy Story 1). That's why people prefer CGI - the general public percieve it as exciting; new; unpredictable.

[Matty-Mouse]

I think the reason is nothing to do with storytelling, ill-concieved advertising or non-musicals.

Firstly, to blame bad storytelling people have to go to see the film in the first place! Nobody can blame Treasure Planet's "failure" on bad storytelling as nobody saw it! Plus, Jungle Book 2 - a film with "bad storytelling" did better box office.

Secondly, Advertising. Sure, some advertising sucks. I do think all of the trailers for Atlantis are poor. But so what, lots of films have poor trailers. I just downloaded the US Holes trailer the other day, and while I loved the film, the trailer wouldn't make me want to see it. Brother Bear has a good trailer. Will it mean more people go to see it? I doubt it.

Non-Musicals. Well, while the most popular Disney films may be musicals, none of the Pixar films or Shrek were musicals. Oh, and South Park: BLU was an awesome musical - but that turned people off (mainly because they just wanted to hear swearing and fart jokes, but I digress)

So why are traditional animated films failing? Personally I think it's because the general public thinks 2D animation has peaked. To the eyes of Johnny Public nothing can be done to improve the art form. Unlike the golden age of Disney animated films where each new film pushed animation further as an art form. Look at the first Mickey Mouse cartoon and compare it to the last on the 1st B/W Treasure Volume "Mickey's Service Station". It's only seven years, but MSS has much better art, animation and storytelling than Plane Crazy.

Of course, the public is wrong. There is no limit to handdrawn animation because anything you can imagine, you can draw.

Now compare handdrawn animation to CGI - CGI is still advancing at a frightening rate. See a new CGI film and your almost certain to see something new, the art form pushed a little futher. Now, finally, animation houses are starting to experiment with abstract rendering too - this will make CGI films look even more distinctive and exciting (While Pixar, for example, create "Cartoon" characters - all the rendering is photorealistic, with emphasis on shadows, reflections and real-world physics). Shrek 2 will look much better than Shrek. Toy Story 3 (should they actually make it) will look much better then Toy Story 2 (which looked better than Toy Story 1). That's why people prefer CGI - the general public percieve it as exciting; new; unpredictable.

So deep and yet so true.

Also I'd like to point out for WHATEVER reason everything goes though a bad patch. Look at, for want of a better example pop stars. People just get sick of them and whether their making great music or not people just don't want anything to do with them for a while and want something new. This is whats happening with Disney. From Mermaid to Trazan every animated film was a success, even films that fared badly at the box office (Rescuers Down Under, Hercules) made money from video sales/TV shows etc. So people are sick of them for the time being.

WDFA will have its day again, mark my words!

[EarthX]

Heavy Metal was released here in 1981 and Fritz the Cat (Rated X) was released in the US in 1972, although it would most likely only be an R by today's standrads.

I guess that's true, although I didn't find either one to have the "oomph" in the plot department that I'd hoped for.

[EarthX]

Non-Musicals. Well, while the most popular Disney films may be musicals, none of the Pixar films or Shrek were musicals. Oh, and South Park: BLU was an awesome musical - but that turned people off (mainly because they just wanted to hear swearing and fart jokes, but I digress)

Of couse Pixar and Shrek are 3D, so that wasn't really the discussion.

South Park was, of course, a parody of the musical cartoon genre. Either people understood that or didn't. I'm sure many didn't.

[michelle]

this is actually an article from the The Sydney Morning Herald...from sometime in early September...

Bambi is dead.

Hollywood is turning its back on hand-drawn animation in favour of big-selling digital movies. But is the end for the beautifully painted features of our childhood? Sheila Johnston thinks not.

Jaws were dropped in Hollywood recently when Jeffrey Katzenberg announced that he would be producing no more hand-drawn animated movies. "I think the idea of a traditional story being told using traditional animation is likely a thing of the past," Katzenberg said.

It was a spectacular U-turn - and perhaps a humiliation - for the man who had made his name at Disney with the Lion Kinf and had set up a studio, DreamWorks, with a mission to reinvent classical animation.

The decision was prompted by the flop of DreamWork's latest and - it now turns out - final stab at 2D animation, Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas. But it had been preceded by a long line of failures such as Treasure Planet, Atlantis and Spirit of the Cimarron.

Meanwhile, computer-generated films thrive. Finding Nemo, a comedy about a clown fish, has been this northern summer's hottest ticket in America where it is already among the highest-grossing films of all time (it took $8.1 million at the Australian box office last weekend - a record opening for an animated film).

DreamWorks is now focusing exclusively on a computer-generated animation, with a Shrek sequel and Sharkslayer, a gangster spoof set under the sea.

So, the new Hollywood truism is that Bambi is dead. That kids, hooked on the wizardry of 3D computer games, no longer want to watch quaint, old-fashioned characters against painted backdrops. Yet the film that won this year's Academy Award for best animated feature did not, like the three unsuccessful candidates, come from Hollywood. It is Spirited Away, directed by Japan's 62-year-old master animator, Hayao Miyazaki.

Conceived for - and inspired by - a friend's 10-year old daughter, Spirited Away depicts a sulky little girl's trip to a marvellous world of ghosts and monsters. Miyazaki has a vast cult following among adults.

But kids love his movies too, even though they are startlingly different from Hollywood's idea of family entertainment. "People at Disney are very,very cautious. They feel children shouldn't be exposed to certain things," says Steve Alpert, an executive at Disney before moving to Ghibli, the Japanese studio where Miyazaki is based.

"Miyazaki feels very strongly that children aren't dumb and that things happening in the world shouldn't be kept from them. There's more respect for what they are able to understand." Tt seems a paradox that Disney should be distributing all Ghibli's productions in the US.

A chorus of leading American critics has accused Disney of burying Spirited Away with a small-scale arthouse campaign. "There are things we are not satisfied with certainly," Alpert says. "but we don't think it was a conspiracy to do a bad job." In any case, Disney's dominance is unlikely to continue: Spirited Away is just one example of remarkable international renaissance in animation.

Told amost entirely without dialogue, Belleville Rendez-Vous, a richly inventive, grotesque but affectionate comedy, was one of the biggest crowd-pleasers in Cannes this year. In the field of model animation, Britain's Nick Park has performed miracles with low tech plasticine: a new Wallace and Gromit feature starts filming next month.

None of these films looks (or sounds) anything like a Hollywood movie; but then why should they?

"For a long time, there was just one thing you could see, coming from mainly Disney, and they had a lot of money. It was difficult for European producers to think they could compete," says Belleville's director Sylvain Chomet.

"It's sad DreamWorks didn't try something original before shutting the 2D unit down. But they just did Disney-style stuff. Sometimes not even as good."

At Warner Bros, Joe Dante is the latest to come under pressure.

Experienced in all forms of animation (Gremlins 1 and 2; Small Soldiers), he is completing Looney Tunes: Back in Action, which mixes live actors and 2D animation a la Roger Rabbit. Warner Bros hopes to revive interests in Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and the other regulars. However, these oddballs come loaded with controversy.

"The difficulty has been just getting the studio to approve of what we are doing," says Dante.

"Because of the child audience, animated features are subject to a great deal more scrutiny than other films. Porky Pig stutters, and that is considered a negative stereotype. Speedy [Gonzales] was on maratorium for a while, because some groups objected until researcg showed that in Mexico he's an extremely popular character. Elmer Fudd is a hunter and shoots rabbits. We can't have that after Columbine."

Practitioners blame the obsession with eradicaing anything contentious for the crisis in US animation: Dante believes it is responsible for the long delays on Universal's film of Maurice Sendack's Where the Wild Things Are.

Sinbad notoriously whitewashed its Arabian hero into a dude from Sicily with Brad Pitt's voice.

Computer animation has (so far) been bolder because star artists such as Pixar's John Lassiter have held on to creative control and because these projects attract top writers, drawn by the novelty of the medium and the financial resources avaliable to it.

But, Dante maintains, 2D animation will eventually stage a comeback in Hollywood.

"People have been somewhat spoiled by the high production values of computer-generated films, but the enchantment of watching drawings move on a screen is undiminished. As long as a child can hold a pencil in his hand, there will always be a future for it."

Phew, that was long, but i know i always enjoy a good read - especially a disney-related one.

[indianajdp]

Matty brought up agood point that I've thought about recently as well.

It may be five years from now. It may be ten years from now.
Heck, it may even be twenty years from now.

.
.
.
.

Traditional Animation will make a comeback.
We'll be so glazed over from the super-glitzy look of 3D and 4D animation that Disney will do a huge project in the traditional sense and it will be welcomed back with open arms.

Think about it. If Disco Music and Bell-Bottom Jeans can make a comeback (and if you don't think they have over the past two years I can tell you they most certainly have) than so can our beloved traditional animation.

Keep the faith