The Return of 2D?

[2099net]

There is a huge difference between big-budget feature films using 2-D animation, and a division that grinds out cheap sequels and other DTV junk...

Plus, where are these magical "feature animation animators" going to come from? The old school learned their trade on the shorts, but we have no animated shorts now.

And don't think every sacked Disney animator is sitting by the phone waiting for a call back to Disney. They have little things like families and debts which need servicing.

Like them or hate them, the DisneyToon studios had an important place in the corporate structure - teaching a new generation of animators (and on a tight budget, which - let's face it - in all probability would have defeated some of the old school animators). Considering all of this, they worked miracles.

It's all a moot point though. DisneyToon Australia was the last, and that's closing soon.

As a side note, I see most of the critical "buzz" over Cars at the moment seems to be focusing on the life-like environments and landscapes, rather than the story or the characters... make of that what you will.

[Karushifa]

Chicken Little : Finding Nemo :: Star Wars : Star Trek . Thus continues the Great Battle of Our Time

To call Disney's wholesale rejection of 2-D animation hasty is a huge understatement. What's peculiar about the rise and fall of CGI as a white hot medium is that I think that both 2D and 3D Disney films got hurt. The latter 2D films were in part dismissed by audiences who thought that 2D was on the skids and wanted a whole series of SHREK-tacular (oh, I crack me up) movies, while Chicken Little and The Wild (yes, I know The Wild isn't WDFA, but how many Average Joe movie-goers know that?) may have appeared to some as along the same lines of the tiresome low-grade CGI films being churned out at a rapid rate now as opposed to true "event" films. I think for the most part the "gee whiz" factor that propelled the CGI animation field has died by now, and making a film in CGI doesn't make it bulletproof anymore. So, as a long-term business plan, CGI is not looking to be as good as it did five or so years ago ("well, DUH", would be my response).

I think that as long as there are people out there who care about 2D as an art form rather than as a moneymaker, we will start to see 2D films produced in the US once more. In Disney's case, they may choose to outsource their 2D animation to test the waters before buying back all of their equipment for WDFA. And yes, I do think there is some talent out there that could conceivably be sweet-talked into coming back, if the occasion calls for it. 2D still has a loyal following (Ghibli films are growing more and more popular outside of Japan, and independent fare like Belleville Rendez-vous is garnering accolades as well). Now all they (we?) have to do is translate some of that love to the rest of the movie-goers.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

I don't remember exact names, but it appears that quite a few of the "traditional" animation people at Disney accepted to make the transition to 3D, so the people are still there, to some extent.

[Karushifa]

I don't remember exact names, but it appears that quite a few of the "traditional" animation people at Disney accepted to make the transition to 3D, so the people are still there, to some extent.

I wonder if Glen Keane is still there...he did some combo CGI/2D work on John Silver in Treasure Planet, so he at least has experience in both (he also worked with the "deep canvas" SFX in Tarzan).

One thing to remember here is that none of the most recent animators who did 2D at Disney were complete strangers to CGI. Computer effects have been incorporated into 2D Disney films since The Great Mouse Detective, so I think most everyone got some experience in both media before 2D was axed.

[deadmanjeff]

i really hope 2d comes back because its so beautiful and you can tell people took their time on them

[singerguy04]

I don't know how many people have said something along the lines of "Disney movies have sucked ever since The Lion King, Mulan, or Tarzan. The reason why 2D began to fail was because the transition to 3D began when Toy Story came out. To me it was never a surprise that 2D dissapeared in theaters, but then again i know that many people of the general public are aching for a broadway musical-like disney movie like Beauty and the Beast or The Lion King. Yes, Home on the Range was sorta like a musical but i'd say that is a stretch of thinking. It wasn't made for the music and all of that, it was made for comedy (at least that's my opinion).

It is my belief that if disney were to put the time and money into making a huge broadway musical-like movie, 2D or not, that it would tremendously surpass that of the 3D animated films of the past 3 years. EVERY 3D film that has been released has been a comedy, and that has gotten old. I'm REALLY hoping that Rapunzel is a musical, because that's is the perfect chance to try this new idea out. I say that because anyone who thinks that Disney will not try to run Rapunzel into the Disney Princess line is a complete fool and if they were to make it a musical it would fit in wonderfully.

As far as a return to 2D, it will happen. I hope it's sooner than latter, but i know it will happen. There are things you can achieve with 2D that you can never do with a computer, and the demand for the beauty of hand drawn animation will proove that in years to come. I compare the current trend of CGI to the era between the Aristocats and The Great Mouse Detective. The animation in all of those films is in NO WAY Disney's best, but that style was the demand. People wanted a story, rather than extraordinary music and animation. Then it all came back, just like i'm confident that it will come back in the future, either in 2D or 3D. i don't care which it is, i just really want a good story, some very well designed beautiful animation, and some really good music.

[2099net]

I think that as long as there are people out there who care about 2D as an art form rather than as a moneymaker, we will start to see 2D films produced in the US once more. In Disney's case, they may choose to outsource their 2D animation to test the waters before buying back all of their equipment for WDFA. And yes, I do think there is some talent out there that could conceivably be sweet-talked into coming back, if the occasion calls for it.

Really. I don't know, there's an old saying. "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me".

Don't forget, before being "let-go" most animators had to accept volentary paycut after paycut just to keep their jobs at Disney. I think enough time has passed now for them to have settled into a new way of life. I had a job (with a dot com start-up company) who towards the end of my employment didn't pay me for three months. Even though I liked the job and liked most of the people there, there's no way on Earth I would go back there, no matter what they promised.

But my point was, for all these "sequel-haters", the sequels are important training grounds for the new generation of talent, because there's nowhere else 2D animators can apprentice. Even the bulk of tv and advertising animation is done overseas.

And even if the current generation of animators can be tempted back, how long will they last? Who will in-between their work? They need proven support.

Nothing is simple black-and-white, everythings shades of grey. The sequels were definitely grey. Now that Disney has decided to "let go" DisneyToon Studios Australia, the likelyhood of Disney considering a serious, full-scale reinvestment in handdrawn animation is very small.

[Owlzindabarn]

I do believe that 2-D is more or less dead, at least as far as major feature releases in the future. Everyone on this board is discussing the business end of 3-D vs. 2-D, or the aesthetics of 3-D vs. 2-D. What no one seems to be bringing up is one simple fact: already, an entire generation of children has been brought up viewing, in some cases, ONLY 3-D animation. They are used to it; it is the animation intended for, and embraced by, their generation. To them, already, 2-D animation is beginning to look flat and lifeless. This is the natural viewpoint of a child raised in the current 3-D milieu.

This thread seems to be centering around emotional and sentimental reactions to the loss of a certain kind of artform. This type of reaction is unfair to today's animators. Maybe cell animation is going away, but animation is here to stay. There are more animated films than ever. I believe that a lot of animation fans are missing out; they are dismissing all 3-D animation as rubbish simply because they disagree with the irreverency behind such hits as "Shrek," a film that skewers classic Disney convention. But these movies, as tacky, noisy and tasteless as they sometimes are, are also very, very popular with their intended young audiences.

I believe that those who dismiss computer animation as a fad are in denial as to the way society works. Keep in mind--and this is very, very true--that people such as you mocked the coming of sound and color in movies, and pooh-poohed the advent of the widescreen motion picture. All of these innovations and many more were initially snubbed by some, embraced by others.

Classic 2-D animation will never disappear entirely, because Disney will continue to release older product in dvd and future formats. But the truth, painful as you make it out to be, is that as generations come and go, these old films will age and look clumsier and quainter as time goes by. That's reality. I was born in 1965; therefore, black-and-white films looks "old fashioned." But this same sentiment does not hold with say, my parents, because they were young when those "old fashioned" films came out. By the same token, old silent movies appear quaint to them. The same is true with music styles, with television genres, with all artforms. It's always evolving, always changing, but it never goes backward.

Each generation wants its own classics. To a child, whatever artforms were popular when they were young, whatever movies were made and intended for their generation, become, therefore the standard by which they judge other artforms. Therefore, for a child in the 30s, "Snow White" is "standard" animation. For a child in the 90s, "Beauty & the Beast" is the standard. In this decade, children will someday probably recall "Shrek" or "Madagascar" as "standard," and these same children will someday debate the merits of whatever artistic innovations come along. And so on and so on.

None of you has to embrace 3-D animation if you don't want to. You can, if you wish, cling to the past and fear the future. But understand, whether you want to or not, that time does not go backward; that artistic and technological innovations will continue and that your children will appreciate artforms that differ from your own aesthetics.

[Lord Yupa]

I do believe that 2-D is more or less dead, at least as far as major feature releases in the future.

Really?! Maybe in America it is, but not in other parts of the world. Such studios as Les Armateurs in France and Studio Ghibli in Japan, which are extremely successful in their native countries, continue to make beautiful animated films with great animation and storytelling.
If you're interested, watch these two trailers for Studio Ghibli's upcoming "Tales from Earthsea" film, which is being coproduced by Disney, and is done in lush, textbook full-motion animation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8QftY7pmQs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1nA6rwLs3U

Now tell me that 2D animation is dead .

[Disney Duster]

None of you has to embrace 3-D animation if you don't want to. You can, if you wish, cling to the past and fear the future. But understand, whether you want to or not, that time does not go backward; that artistic and technological innovations will continue and that your children will appreciate artforms that differ from your own aesthetics.

Many advanced societies, such as ancient Greece, were once magnificent civilizations that later declined and disappeared. Then the Dark Ages happened where things slowly tried to get better but they didn't know much and life was not enjoyable. Then the Renaissance finally made things a little brighter. Sometimes we do go backwards. But trends that once were popular come back.

I think that since we appreciate things from older times, we will keep doing the things they did in those times. And as long as people like to draw, and there's some kids making little flip books with their drawings, 2-dimensional animation will always be alive.

[slyslayer3000]

I always appreciate 2D films. They're just simple yet they're brilliant to watch. But since we cannot undo the future that's happening already, like 3D and CGI films...let's just face it. Someday, it will all just be like it.
But as we grow older and older, it will be forgotten and forgotten. You're 50 years older from now...but when you watch a 2D animated film...oh, it brings back memories...

...cherished memories.

[Owlzindabarn]

That's exactly my sentiment, slyslayer. Because the only alternate argument--saying 2-D is going to return as the dominant animation form in feature films--is the same as saying that Hollywood is suddenly going to return to making black and white, hand-cranked silent films again. I don't care if France and Japan still produce a lot of cell animated films; I'm talking about the U.S. Here, technological innovation creates competition among filmmakers. When sound movies were introduced, they became instantly popular and all the studios scrambled to produce sound movies. Color pictures were popularized much slower, and for several decades color and b&W films ran side by side. But eventually color began to dominate, and ascend. The cell vs. CGI war was much, much quicker and the winner was CGI. Face it!

The only B&W films made today are auteur films like Schindler's List. The same will be true for cell animation: it will not go away entirely--it still dominates in television--but it has peaked and never again will dominate in U.S. theaters. There will always be a small sampling of cell films that come out, but they will be the exception, not the rule. To think that somehow we'll just turn back the clock is ridiculous at this point.

Uh...as a postscript, I'd like to point out that somebody above likened the advent of CGI films to the decline of Western civilization. I, uh, really don't see the analogy...! DisneyDuster, are you saying that the difference between The Aristocats and Chicken Little is a sign of the Apocalypse??? You say "I think that since we appreciate things from older times, we will keep doing the things they did in those times." Okay, well, we appreciate Elvis Presley, but I certainly don't hear Jessica Simpson singing "Jailhouse Rock" on the radio. We appreciate Shakespeare but new plays on Broadway don't seem to be overdoing the doublet and hose, now do they? Your statement seems to take a traditionalist standpoint, but keep in mind that the U.S. is a competitive society, not a traditional society. Traditional societies are also stagnant, because they lack innovation. There are thousands of societies in history that shunned innovation and new ideas; those societies went nowhere, century after century. And those are the societies that go into decline, because soon enough, another civilization with higher technologies will conquer them. That's history for ya.

To do things in a traditional way would be sweet if it could work, but in truth, innovation is what sells in our society. Things change; new things are introduced, old things are lost. Sometimes things are lost but not for the better. Sometimes old things come back for a while, and then go away again. What I was trying to say in my earlier post is that small children are going to CGI movies in droves and they are being enchanted by them. Those are their films. When those kids grow up, more likely than not, they will want to make CGI films. They will emulate the films of their childhood, and try to recreate them and improve on them. And those who adhere to the old ways of doing things will always stifle those who are the truly creative, the innovators and originators. That's is unreasonable and unfair. But our society is such that innovation does eventually succeed. Some things are introduced that remain mere novelty, some things are introduced that remain and replace whatever came before. That's the truth. It may make the rest of us feel old, but we are old, compared to 5 year olds. That's just the way the world works.

[slyslayer3000]

I guess you're right...but we still have to wait and see if 2D animated films will really return. They said that Home on the Range is Disney's last hand-drawn animated film, but this news is just bugging me. Let's just wait if this is verified or confirmed. Because if it is, it'll be great. Why can't they just produce films both in 2D and 3D? It wouldn't hurt to see 3D films and 2D films together at the same generation, right? Nothing's better or worse between the two. I think they're both equal.

[Karushifa]

And even if the current generation of animators can be tempted back, how long will they last? Who will in-between their work? They need proven support.

It was my understanding that a good portion of the animation staff at WDFA right now had been doing 2D work and were re-trained to operate the CGI rendering equipment. Computers had been a big part of the 2D animation process for years, so it wasn't exactly like re-training the Nine Old Men to do CGI. Still, I would think that it would have been prudent of Disney to look for potential CGI talent in-house where the folks at least already had experience in character design and animation technique.

[2099net]

The number of retained animators is quite small, I think. I'm pretty sure I read selected animators were offered retraining and a position in the CGI studio, but most refused.

You can question their motivations, but some probably weren't asked, others left to form their own animation studios (or work for those who did) and others were probably sick to the teeth with Disney (and who can blame them?).

Regardless, I don't think anyone can assume Disney has the talent and skills in-house for a 2D project. For example, Enchanted is being done via an external studio from what I understand.

In addition to if the skills exist or not, there's still no provision for the next-generation of animators, so even if they could continue with 2D, how is new talent to be discovered, grown and finally bloom? Then there's the vast army of support needed for the animators - clean up, in-betweening and inking. Where are those employees?

Looking at the IMDB listing for Chicken Little, there's not many animators actually listed. But based on the animators on list:

Dougg Williams (previous Disney animated credits, but jumped ship to Sony for Open Season)
Yuriko Senoo (previous animation credits are Disney, but CGI only)
Nik Ranieri (previous Disney animation credits)
Alex Mark (previous animation credits at Disney, mostly CGI)
Joe Mandia (previous credits are CGI effects only, also moved to Open Season)
Clay Kaytis (previous Disney animation credits)
Chadd Ferron (previous Disney animation credits)
Brian Ferguson (previous Disney animation credits)
Mark R.R. Farquhar (previous credits are CGI effects only)
Lino DiSalvo (previous credits are CGI effects only)
Darrin Butters (previous credits are Disney, but CGI only)
Chris Buck (previous Disney animation credits)

Meanwhile The Emperor's New Groove (picked at semi-random following a link) has 41 animators listed, not to mention the unlisted support crew of clean-up artists, in-betweeners and inkers - the vast majority of which Disney will have thrown out of the building without a second thought and as fast of they could, being as there's no use for them in CGI.

(I know IMDB isn't definitive, but you can see the difference)

Really, Disney has let the talent pool drain, until only the dregs remain (or to rephrase it so it doesn't sound offensive, only the cream that floated to the top remains).

Even if they wanted to, it would require major effort to re-staff a 2D studio - especially if everybody expected the quality of previous WDFA films straight away. Disney only reached that level in the past through organic growth going back to the days of black and white shorts.

[Disney Duster]

DisneyDuster, are you saying that the difference between The Aristocats and Chicken Little is a sign of the Apocalypse???

No. I was trying to say that sometimes we do go backwards, and start over, like those civilizations. But I didn't say it very well, and you made of your points very well. So I have to say you are right about a lot of things. But just like they still do some black and white movies now a days, they will still make some 2-D animation. One thing we have to remember is as long as Disney's still alive, so are their old 2-D characters. They won't show them in 3-D all time, they will stay true to their roots. And there fans will get angry if they don't.

[TheSequelOfDisney]

I have a concept in my mind that deals with 2D animation. I'll save that when I get my dream job. Which just happens to be working at Disney. I want 2D back.

[I Am Clark Kent]

Just to let everyone know, I'm penning a script that will eventually make it to the Disney head office. Its something so profound that it will require traditional animation to be used. I won't say what that this project entails, but it goes to the heart of the Disney enterprise.

[Escapay]

Just to let everyone know, I'm penning a script that will eventually make it to the Disney head office. Its something so profound that it will require traditional animation to be used. I won't say what that this project entails, but it goes to the heart of the Disney enterprise.

I really hate to say it, I really do, but unless you've got a bigname agent who's pushing and pushing your script to them, you're simply one of the thousands of other Disney fans out there writing scripts and naively sending it to the company, hoping it's actually going to be read and get a "WOW, we have to make it!" reaction.

The truth is, studios don't accept fan-submitted scripts. Whatever they receive goes straight to the wastebasket. It's not a matter of "It's fan-written, it may be good, but most likely it may suck". It's simply that they CAN'T waste time paying someone (maybe interns) to read each and every script and decide if it's good enough for one of the bigwigs to read it. And they CAN'T run the risk of actually liking a script, calling in the author, and having to negotiate with a newbie to the biz. I'm sure it's a great script, replete with the magical moments that Disney films usually had. But like I said before, unless it's being professionally solicited to studios by an agent, Disney won't give it the time of day.

I used to do the same thing. I'd write spec scripts and send them to various daytime soaps, hoping they'd say, "Hey, this kid's got something! Let's hire him!". Of course I was a teenager, but I had the same spunk, the same energy. I *wanted* them to read my stuff. I *wanted* them to say it was good. My stuff *was* good, at least with high-school standards. But it was a rude awakening when I realized that all my scripts and soap opera proposals were simply being tossed into the recycling bin to be shredded. I never received any replies from my scripts or letters. I was essentially ignored, as have many others been in the past.

It's a competitive world out there. For every professional writer who's got someone representing them and acting as liason between them and the studio, there's gonna be 100 fans who are trying to get their foot in the door any way they can. Either by visiting every day and dropping off a script, or wasting postage every day mailing it in. The best way to get your script some recognition is to start making contacts from within the company. See if you can get an entry-level job at Disney studios. Get to know your bosses, and over the next couple of years, maybe talk to them about your script.

But don't EVER EVER let anyone read it unless it's your agent or the big boss who'd make it. It's a very "Me! Me! Me!" world, and a "friend" could easily take your wonderful idea, tweak it a bit, put their name on it, and get it to the boss through their own contacts.

Escapay

[I Am Clark Kent]

That's exactly the reason I'm going to film school once I've finished college.

I'm going to get my contacts, contracts, and agents in order first. I'm even going to become a member of the screen writers guild before I even submit my first script for review.

I mean, people can do this, its only that you have to talk to the right people, and you have to convince them that the concept can make the company money.

Like you said they won't talk to just anyone on the street, but they also have to be looking for new material, or the industry would go broke!

I'm confident in my abilities, and I won't let anyone tell me otherwise.