Traditional Animation Is Back (It Seems For Good) At Disney!

[Goliath]

^Goliath, thank you for adding your thoughts to mine. Perhaps the key is what you said about Walt wanting to have annual releases by filling in the gaps between "major" films with less expensive films that presumably would have lower box office expectations.

What makes this extra interesting to me, is the fact that this idea of Walt planning to make cheaper, more formulaic movies to 'fill in the gaps' shatters the commonly held myth of Walt as this great artistic genius who only cared about the art of animation. Yes, he cared about that as well, but he also cared about quantity and makng money; and that's something that gets acknowledged too little. It's almost blasphemy to even discuss it. But over the years, Walt saw this approach didn't work, and that's why, in the 1950's, you see more and more years pass between feature animated films.

It makes sense to not expect every film to be a blockbuster, and to treat only some as "events" when it comes to marketing and budgeting. Over the past decade or so, it seems that there has been an expectation that every Disney animated movie should be as big as The Lion King and that only leads to disappointment.

Exactly! Disney has gotten so greedy to a point it is unbelievable! Hercules and Hunchback of Notre Dame took in hundreds of millions of dollars; numbers any film producers would have killed for! And yet even that wasn't enough for Disney, because it was less than what The Lion King had made, so they decided to neglect the films, both in DVD and in merchandising.

In live action, Disney seems to have a more realistic approach, producing some movies as "events" and others not so much. It's when the unexpected minor film becomes a hit that everyone gets excited. Maybe they should take this approach to feature animation instead of setting themselves up for a letdown when something like Home on the Range doesn't become a huge hit.

I don't know if they ever expected Home on the Range to be a hit. I doesn't look like they've poured a lot of work into it. Looks like a cheap way to make some quick extra bucks. I don't know about the US, but where I live, the marketing for that film was non-existent.

It's funny you mention minor films becoming unexpected hits. I believe that's what happened with Dumbo. But I do believe Disney should try to make every film a succes. But that can only happen when you don't saturate the market with your product, and when you don't spread all your talented people over too many projects. Just release less products. They've already given the cheapquels the shaft. That's a step in the right direction. Now get rid of abominations like High School Musical and get focussed on turning out fine feature animated films.

By the way, based on everything I've read about Walt Disney, I firmly believe that, had he been in charge of the company for the last decades, we would've seen traditional animation getting the shaft a loooooong time ago. I think Walt would have only wanted to make CGI films. And they would have been good.

[ajmrowland]

^Goliath, thank you for adding your thoughts to mine. Perhaps the key is what you said about Walt wanting to have annual releases by filling in the gaps between "major" films with less expensive films that presumably would have lower box office expectations.

What makes this extra interesting to me, is the fact that this idea of Walt planning to make cheaper, more formulaic movies to 'fill in the gaps' shatters the commonly held myth of Walt as this great artistic genius who only cared about the art of animation. Yes, he cared about that as well, but he also cared about quantity and makng money; and that's something that gets acknowledged too little. It's almost blasphemy to even discuss it. But over the years, Walt saw this approach didn't work, and that's why, in the 1950's, you see more and more years pass between feature animated films.

Yes. Like I said, quality films cost money, and Walt Disney recognized that he'd need it. Okay I didn't mention the last part.
I do disagree with you on one thing. I still see him as an artistic genius, because of how much he cared about many of his films. That's a rare thing to find in somebody who actually runs a studio.

It makes sense to not expect every film to be a blockbuster, and to treat only some as "events" when it comes to marketing and budgeting. Over the past decade or so, it seems that there has been an expectation that every Disney animated movie should be as big as The Lion King and that only leads to disappointment.

Exactly! Disney has gotten so greedy to a point it is unbelievable! Hercules and Hunchback of Notre Dame took in hundreds of millions of dollars; numbers any film producers would have killed for! And yet even that wasn't enough for Disney, because it was less than what The Lion King had made, so they decided to neglect the films, both in DVD and in merchandising.

Sadly, too true. I always counted Hades as one of my favorite villains.

In live action, Disney seems to have a more realistic approach, producing some movies as "events" and others not so much. It's when the unexpected minor film becomes a hit that everyone gets excited. Maybe they should take this approach to feature animation instead of setting themselves up for a letdown when something like Home on the Range doesn't become a huge hit.

I don't know if they ever expected Home on the Range to be a hit. I doesn't look like they've poured a lot of work into it. Looks like a cheap way to make some quick extra bucks. I don't know about the US, but where I live, the marketing for that film was non-existent.

I live in the US, and it didn't exactly have marketing of epic proportions over here, either.

Now get rid of abominations like High School Musical and get focussed on turning out fine feature animated films.

Isn't that what they're doing? They're pretty much finished with HSM, and are beginning to slow down Hannah Montana. So long as they don't shove Demi Levato down our throats, things should look up.

By the way, based on everything I've read about Walt Disney, I firmly believe that, had he been in charge of the company for the last decades, we would've seen traditional animation getting the shaft a loooooong time ago. I think Walt would have only wanted to make CGI films. And they would have been good.

Interesting. I always knew that Walt was one to "keep moving forward" but never thought he'd discard an art form for something of more recent technology. He did make some interesting decisions, though.

[kurtadisneyite]

If D's animation department's 3D work helps support the longer time a proper 2D feature takes to make, well and good!

2D's marvelous for subtle acting as well as wild extreme poses. But transposing in 3D space (head turns, body pivots, etc.) is harder and takes longer to get right, even with computer-aided tools the Disney animators and others now have at their disposal.

Also, I've been told D's production unit for 2D is relatively small - under 100 people. That helps keep costs down, allows tighter focus and more personal approaches to animation, but slows down production. They may utilize off-shore in-betweening and coloring, as they did for some of their earlier features. Whatever works...

[rb_canadian181]

He's working on "Rapunzel". I think that's why he's not doing PatF.

Wow! you're right. they've been switching around composers for this film a couple times but i'm glad Alan is doing it! Thanks for letting me know. The source for that information is on the Sister Act website: http://www.sisteractthemusical.com/creative/music.php

...but to downplay the effort of animators for their work in something like the main characters of nemo (and Im just using this as an exmaple) would be just plain disrespectfull.

You're right. the CGI films are most definetly a complex art form! I guess i'm just more of a sucker for the animated classics.

[Goliath]

I do disagree with you on one thing. I still see him as an artistic genius, because of how much he cared about many of his films. That's a rare thing to find in somebody who actually runs a studio.

Then we actually agree. I hoped I had made it clear that Walt Disney, in my mind, was very caring about his output. I just wanted to put more emphasis on an aspect that gets overlooked too often, and that is his desire to put out more films, even though, for that to work, some of them had to be of a lesser quality.

Interesting. I always knew that Walt was one to "keep moving forward" but never thought he'd discard an art form for something of more recent technology. He did make some interesting decisions, though.

From what I've read about Walt Disney, he was already losing interest in hand drawn animation in the late 1950's. He wanted to do live action instead, and develop more theme parks. But he had to continue doing animation, because that's what the audience expected from him. Sometimes, it reads like this was a burden on him. Disney was an innovator, so I don't really see him still making hand drawn feature films in the 1990's and beyond.

[Bebopgroove]

[BelleGirl]

Interesting. I always knew that Walt was one to "keep moving forward" but never thought he'd discard an art form for something of more recent technology. He did make some interesting decisions, though.

From what I've read about Walt Disney, he was already losing interest in hand drawn animation in the late 1950's. He wanted to do live action instead, and develop more theme parks. But he had to continue doing animation, because that's what the audience expected from him. Sometimes, it reads like this was a burden on him. Disney was an innovator, so I don't really see him still making hand drawn feature films in the 1990's and beyond.

Well, we don't know for sure. For even traditional animation technique can be renewed as happened in the '90s.Think of CGI-assisted scenes and Deep Canvas for instance. And I doubt that innovation in traditional 2d-animation has run its course. So Walt's interest in 2D might also have gotten a boost.

CGI-animation is making great strides forward, but it still hasn't got the fluency and limitless possibilities 2D already had to offer many decades ago. Can you redo The sorcererer's apprentice or even a simple Donald Duck cartoon in CGI only? I doubt that.

[nickatina]

[/quote]
From what I've read about Walt Disney, he was already losing interest in hand drawn animation in the late 1950's. He wanted to do live action instead, and develop more theme parks. But he had to continue doing animation, because that's what the audience expected from him. Sometimes, it reads like this was a burden on him. Disney was an innovator, so I don't really see him still making hand drawn feature films in the 1990's and beyond.[/quote]

Actually you're wrong, nobody expected him to make animated films anymore and when he brought up the idea of still doing them people were asking him why? " why worry about animated features, you got your themeparks and live action now" But walt still wanted to make 2D films. But the cost of producing was less than his older films because they began to use the xerox process and more modernized backrounds, both of which Walt hated and if he had an infinite supply of money he would've made everything in the style of cinderella and snow white artwise.

[schoollover]

I'm so happy, maybe theyll do another animal classic, such as bambi or the lion king which will become a great classic everyone will love. Anything genre is good though.

[ajmrowland]

I'm so happy, maybe theyll do another animal classic, such as bambi or the lion king which will become a great classic everyone will love. Any genre is good though.

fix'd.

[Goliath]

Actually you're wrong, nobody expected him to make animated films anymore and when he brought up the idea of still doing them people were asking him why? " why worry about animated features, you got your themeparks and live action now" But walt still wanted to make 2D films. But the cost of producing was less than his older films because they began to use the xerox process and more modernized backrounds, both of which Walt hated and if he had an infinite supply of money he would've made everything in the style of cinderella and snow white artwise.

I don't know what sources you've used, but that's not the way I have read it. Disney was already losing interest in animation around the time Lady and the Tramp was being made, that's how I've read it, and that was even before the Xerox process. I don't know anybody who suggested to him to stop making animated films.

But really, all you and I could do is speculate, since e both will never know what Walt Disney himself thought about it.

[nickatina]

Actually you're wrong, nobody expected him to make animated films anymore and when he brought up the idea of still doing them people were asking him why? " why worry about animated features, you got your themeparks and live action now" But walt still wanted to make 2D films. But the cost of producing was less than his older films because they began to use the xerox process and more modernized backrounds, both of which Walt hated and if he had an infinite supply of money he would've made everything in the style of cinderella and snow white artwise.

I don't know what sources you've used, but that's not the way I have read it. Disney was already losing interest in animation around the time Lady and the Tramp was being made, that's how I've read it, and that was even before the Xerox process. I don't know anybody who suggested to him to stop making animated films.

But really, all you and I could do is speculate, since e both will never know what Walt Disney himself thought about it.

I got it from a documentarty, it said Walt wanted to keep doing 2d pictures and he was still interested in them but the theme park and live action made him a very busy man so hehad to let some other guy handle the animated movies.

[ajmrowland]

Good ol' Wolfgang.