Hand-Drawn Animation Dead at Disney

[Warm Regards]

Off-topic, but I wonder if Disney pushed the PG rating for Tangled and Frozen because PG sounds more appealing to kids than G.

It's not implausible. It could be a reason.

The MPAA rating system, in my opinion, is incredibly flawed.

But it is probable, considering how many animated films these days are PG.

On a similar tangent, the only hand drawn films to get a PG rating were The Black Cauldron, Treasure Planet and Atlantis, yes?

[DisneyJedi]

Lilo & Stitch and Home on the Range are two other PG rated hand drawn films. Anyway, I don't understand what is with Disney and rating literally all their CG films, starting with Bolt, PG

[unprincess]

^ Yes I read an article a long time ago, cant remember where, that stated after the first Shrek film became a huge hit it became more common marketing-wise to give animated films PG ratings b/c that film had brought in older teens and adults to the theaters to watch animation, and they didnt want to scare them off with a G rating. So much so that a lot of animated flms that would have otherwise been G rated were made sure by execs to contain a toilet humor scene or lowbrow joke so it would get the PG rating instead.

thanks for the Aaron Blaise link, that was so nice! At least we know 2d will have a home of sorts on Youtube.

[DisneyJedi]

Oh, come on! Pocahontas, Hunchback of Notre Dame and Mulan each had more things worthy of a PG rating than both Bolt and Frozen put together!

[Elladorine]

It's well-known that many family-friendly films of the 80s specifically inserted fowl language to go for a "hipper" PG rating in attempts to draw in the teenage crowd. Baby: Secret of the Lost Legend is the first that comes to mind, and is an example of how throwing in a swear word can't save a whole movie. I imagine it was considered much more of a risk to do so with a family-friendly animated film at the time, especially given the reception of The Black Cauldron.

The G rating still has the whole "kids only" stigma going on, but luckily animation has managed to cross over to more acceptance again with the older crowd. It's unfortunate that movie-makers deem a specific rating necessary to reinforce that perception, but it is what it is, given that a rating can mean millions of dollars difference in profits from movie consumers. And as previously mentioned, the ratings are often nonsensical anyway. If I recall correctly, the MPAA doesn't have to cite specific reasons when they rate a film, leaving film makers with a lot of potentially costly guesswork when trying to alter the rating they've been given on a film.

[MeerkatKombat]

ro

Oh, come on! Pocahontas, Hunchback of Notre Dame and Mulan each had more things worthy of a PG rating than both Bolt and Frozen put together!

I agree. How Hunchback is a G rating and Frozen is a PG is just incoherent to me. Hunchback had some heavy stuff going on and I can't think of anywhere in Frozen that comes close. When I was younger, the scene where Quasimodo is pelted by the crowd actually semi-disturbed me for a while (I don't know why Esmeralda being burnt to death didn't). I think about that scene in Return of Jafar where Aladdin came within half a second of having his head cut off - it's a G rating.

The rating system is bonkers.

[Disney's Divinity]

Honestly, most of Disney's older films would be rated PG today. Mermaid, B&tB, Aladdin, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia, etc. should all be PG. Only a few films like Robin Hood, TSitS, Alice in Wonderland, Winnie the Pooh, etc. would be G.

I enjoyed that post with Steve Cunningham's thoughts, Sotiris, thanks. I imagine many hand-drawn animators who have had to transition to 3D for work don't enjoy 3D the same way, but you either have to go along or you're unemployed.

[estefan]

The only recent CG animated movies I can recall getting G ratings were a couple of the Pixar ones (Toy Story 3, Cars 2) and the Rio movies. And the G rating hardly affected their box-office totals. I think it's definitely a case where they think the PG rating will entice the older crowd.

However, I did read an interview with Paul Feig, whose producing the upcoming Peanuts Movie, where he said that film will be rated G. In keeping with the filmmakers being faithful to the original comics and tv specials and not adding dirty humour and language (the usual reasons for a movie getting a PG rating) to a series that never had them. Unless the MPAA decides that Snoopy battling the Red Baron and Lucy not letting Charlie Brown kick the ball is too "perilous" in this PC age and gives it a PG. You never know with that group.

[Sotiris]

Worthwhile 2D-animated projects that need your help:

• Only Human (5 days left)
• The Black Peanut (12 days left)
• Uncle Antlers (13 days left)
• Boxhead (14 days left)
• Eva Is Inside Her Cat (16 days left)
• Coluboccoro (23 days left)
• Bill Plympton's Revengeance (44 days left)

[DisneyJedi]

The first one only has $127 backing it and only five days to meet its quota?? What the hell, man?!

[Kyle]

I did a tiny pencil test trying to animate a mickey head turn.

http://kylemaloney.tumblr.com/post/1158 ... ckey-a-bit

[DisneyFan09]

Good work, Kyle

[Sotiris]

Keith Grachow, who worked as a digital ink and paint on The Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh, talks about the reasons Disney abandoned 2D animation.

Q: We’re talking with Keith Grachow who is an ex-Disney animator like a lot of our guests. But you were unfortunate enough to be there when they shut down the 2D animation department.

Keith Grachow: Actually, to be technical, I was a digital ink-and-paint artist on Winnie the Pooh and The Princess and the Frog. I would get to see all this beautiful 2D animation and just seeing the lines and the artistry behind all that was very inspiring. So, it was a real shame when they decided that 2D wasn't going to be a viable option for them. When I was doing this, it was really cool to see the whole process. […] I really liked the story [of The Princess and the Frog] but I guess having had some distance on it I can see why maybe it wasn't the perfect movie to bring back 2D. It had a bit of a darker tone to it and maybe it required a bit of a lighter movie.

Q: Disney has always failed when it comes to trying to do a darker movie. The Black Cauldron is a prime example. It’s a great film but it’s not what people expect out of Disney. It’s funny, you get movies like Tangled and Frozen that are more traditional Disney that seems like they almost went in that direction to prove that 2D is dead and it’s 3D that’s making the difference but both of those films would have been magnificent 2D films.

Keith Grachow: It funny you say that, because there actually were pre-production 2D movies. And then when The Princess and the Frog didn't make their $500 million dollars… I mean, it did well. I think, it did make back its money but it just wasn't like a Frozen blockbuster. So, Winnie the Pooh which was the next and last movie I worked on was already pretty far along in production pipeline so they went ahead with that but Tangled and Frozen were killed, as 2D movies at least, and converted in 3D. […] We kind of knew within a couple of months afterwards that it looked liked Disney wasn't too happy with what was going on with The Princess and the Frog. They weren't getting the numbers they expected but Winnie the Pooh entered the pipeline and I was able to work on that.

Source: http://endcredits.podbean.com/e/grachow/

Q: Why do you think Disney abandoned 2D?

Keith Grachow: I actually do have the answer to this. I was privy to that information. What happened was… They had a whole pipeline of 2D animated movies. The Princess and the Frog which was released in 2009, was going to be the start of a 2D renaissance. They were going to bring it back and they were going to continue to do 2D along with 3D. So, there were high hopes for Princess and the Frog and they had in the pipeline Tangled and Frozen, along with Winnie the Pooh. Although I think Frozen was called Ice Queen at the time. These were at various stages of development, with Winnie the Pooh, being a simpler story to animate, further along in production.

They had high hopes for Princess and the Frog when it hit the theaters. It was a great movie, and it did pretty well but I guess after you factor all the marketing they do and what previous 3D movies had done… Shrek was making a billion dollars worldwide so that was where Disney was at in their head. They were going ‘Well, we’re going to bring 2D back but it’s going to be opening at 100 million on the first weekend, and then after that it’s going to make another 2 or 3 hundred million and then it’s going make half a billion worldwide.’ And it didn’t do that. The funny thing is I believe it made 106 million domestically. Worldwide, it maybe made 250 or 300 million. So, it did pretty well for a movie, it just wasn’t as big as Disney wanted. When they got the sense that it wasn’t going to be the blockbuster they thought, they effectively just dropped the other movies that were going to be 2D. The ones that were in pre-production, like Tangled and Frozen, were converted to 3D. Winnie the Pooh was the only one that had already been further along. It was a shame that they didn’t really put much marketing into it. It was only in movie theaters for a couple of weeks. It was a great movie but at that point they had given up on 2D and decided to go along with 3D.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YJZ79Heht4

[DisneyJedi]

Are you serious? The Princess and the Frog wasn't the ideal movie for a 2D comeback because it was "too dark"? The Lion King was pretty damn dark and that was Disney's biggest hit at the time it was released. Snow White was Disney's first movie and it was a box office and critical hit, despite how dark that was! Beauty and the Beast was pretty dark and not only was it a critical and financial success, it became the first animated film in history to get nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture! What's their damn point?!

I get that your posts are very informative, Sotiris, but they're getting more disheartening anytime I see a new update post.

[Disney's Divinity]

Keith Grachow: I really liked the story [of The Princess and the Frog] but I guess having had some distance on it I can see why maybe it wasn't the perfect movie to bring back 2D. It had a bit of a darker tone to it and maybe it required a bit of a lighterwhiter movie.

I know that's not what he meant at all, but it's what went through my mind while reading. Tbh, I think that's flawed logic--TP&TF is nowhere near as dark as The Black Cauldron, so that comparison doesn't work. If anything, it's less dark than Disney's last major comeback--The Little Mermaid. Darkness is a part of fairy tales and most people enjoy it. The problem with TP&TF (besides the delusions and lack of support from Disney...) had to do with the DP line-pandering title, the subpar music, and the fact that the film is less "glamorous" with a cast of frogs, alligators, fireflies, etc. Not exactly appealing the way that mermaids or ice castles are.

I would have killed to have Frozen be 2D as originally intended. *tear*

[Sotiris]

If anything, it's less dark than Disney's last major comeback--The Little Mermaid. Darkness is a part of fairy tales and most people enjoy it.

I'm not so sure about that. While Mermaid has some vague type of magic, TPatF had voodoo which a lot of people believe is real and Dr. Facilier's death where evil spirits cement him into his grave is arguably darker than Ursula getting impaled.

The problem with TP&TF (besides the delusions and lack of support from Disney...) had to do with the DP line-pandering title, the subpar music, and the fact that the film is less "glamorous" with a cast of frogs, alligators, fireflies, etc. Not exactly appealing the way that mermaids or ice castles are.

I agree; darkness had little to do with the movie's under-performance. The reasons you mentioned are spot-on. The film's second act suffered as it was episodic in nature and off pace, while the random adventures in the bayou were dull and way too juvenile. Aside from the obvious (that the protagonist is a Black woman), I would also add that the main character's personality didn't appeal to a broad audience. A lot of people tend to gravitate to clumsy, bubbly, "adorkable" personalities like Rapunzel's and Anna's as opposed to the more somber and grounded personalities of Tiana, Pocahontas or Mulan (FYI, I'm not one of those people ).

I would have killed to have Frozen be 2D as originally intended. *tear*

You and me both. ~sigh~

[disneyprincess11]

If anything, it's less dark than Disney's last major comeback--The Little Mermaid. Darkness is a part of fairy tales and most people enjoy it.

I'm not so sure about that. While Mermaid has some vague type of magic, TPatF had voodoo which a lot of people believe is real and Dr. Facilier's death where evil spirits cement him into his grave is arguably darker than Ursula getting impaled.

Don't forget Ray's death. Killing off a Disney sidekick for real was never heard off until that moment

[DisneyFan09]

Are you serious? The Princess and the Frog wasn't the ideal movie for a 2D comeback because it was "too dark"? The Lion King was pretty damn dark and that was Disney's biggest hit at the time it was released. Snow White was Disney's first movie and it was a box office and critical hit, despite how dark that was! Beauty and the Beast was pretty dark and not only was it a critical and financial success, it became the first animated film in history to get nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture! What's their damn point?!

I get that your posts are very informative, Sotiris, but they're getting more disheartening anytime I see a new update post.

It's all a matter of taste, but I've never considered "TPaTF" to be dark. It certainly has some touches of darkness (as the woodo magic), but it's overall as perky and lighthearted as Musker and Clements previous' works. "Tangled" and "Frozen" were more darker ("Tangled" really doesn't get enough credit for it's darkness, frankly). But it's still a vague statement, indeed. I remember reading a blog about "TPaTF's" lack of appeal because of it's darkness. Well, that user clearly needs to check more Disney history! And one random Imdb user were comparing "Brave" and said that it scary compared to "Beauty and the Beast", which also is very dark and scary at times.

I agree; darkness had little to do with the movie's under-performance.

Yes and no. Dark movies can be successful, but I think the darkness/controversial components hampered "Hunchback's" appeal. Though it wasn't a flop, it made less money than it's predecessors.

The film's second act suffered as it was episodic in nature and off pace, while the random adventures in the bayou were dull and way too juvenile.

I've heard several people complained about the overloaded/episodic nature of the movie, but it personally never bothered me. I agree that the bayou scenes drags a little bit. But "Frozen" had a overloaded plot which really few people complained about.

I would also add that the main character's personality didn't appeal to a broad audience. A lot of people tend to gravitate to clumsy, bubbly, "adorkable" personalities like Rapunzel's and Anna's as opposed to the more somber and grounded personalities of Tiana, Pocahontas or Mulan (FYI, I'm not one of those people ).

Yeah, but remember "Mulan" and "Pocahontas" were box office hits. And while Pocahontas is labeled as dull and boring by many, she was praised by the critics for her mature, proactive personality. And Mulan has her lovers as well.

Don't forget Ray's death. Killing off a Disney sidekick for real was never heard off until that moment

Yeah. Kudos to Disney for doing that.

[Sotiris]

Don't forget Ray's death. Killing off a Disney sidekick for real was never heard off until that moment

That's true. I recall that they wanted to kill off Chief in the The Fox and the Hound but they didn't due to pressure from the old guard of animators who claimed this wasn't what Walt would have wanted.

[estefan]

Yeah, I don't think the episodic road trip aspect had an impact on the film's box-office performance. Actually, the whole "the male and female lead go on a road trip to seek something or somebody magical and meet wacky comic relief along the way" formula was later utilised in Tangled and Frozen.

I still stand by that the title did more harm than any other aspect. I'm certain if it was called "Frogs", it would have been a bigger hit. I think the gender-neutral marketing of Tangled and Frozen really helped those movies attract the boy crowd.