Hand-Drawn Animation Dead at Disney

[ce1ticmoon]

I actually think we're already seeing CG animated films start to look different from each other. I think as CG animators have succeeded in replicating reality, there's been more experimentation. Just look at The Peanuts Movie and how they decided to go for a look that replicates the drawings. Or Genddy Tartakovsky going for a more rubbery and snappy approach to his characters in Hotel Transylvania (the film was originally going to have a more photorealistic design and animation style, but Tartakovsky only accepted the directing job if he could do something much closer to classic cartoon animation). The upcoming all-animated Smurfs movie also looks like it will be going for a look closer to the original comics rather than continuing the photo-realistic Smurfs of the hybrid features. The Book of Life was also made to look exactly like the concept art in the character designs and sets as Jorge Gutierrez expressed a sentiment similar to what a lot of people here have said, that he's always disappointed when he looks at the "Art of" Books and how different the designs look in the final product.

A good example is looking at DreamWorks's three big releases last year. All look distinct and different from each other, with unique character designs to the point where they don't even look like they came from the same studio.

I agree. I feel like too many people are too quick to denounce CGI as all looking the same. And it's not like you have to turn to super obscure productions to find CGI films that look different from one another.

It's true that both WDAS and Pixar have a house style that makes most of their films looking a bit similar (this largely was true for WDFA during various phases of their hand-drawn years as well), but if you look outside of that, diverse styles are being achieved. Can they be more diverse and more different? Sure. But the examples listed by estefan show that even in mainstream animation, the styles can be quite different. Whereas Pixar often has films that are a little more grounded in realistic physics and movement, films like Cloudy with A Chance of Meatballs and Tartakovsky's Hotel Transylvania have super exaggerated, cartoony movements that evoke the zaniness of Looney Tunes. Then there's also something like The LEGO Movie, which achieves a quirky, stylized form of animation with interesting staccato-like movements, all with LEGO for building blocks, which aren't exactly known for a diverse sense of movement.

If you look outside of the mainstream, you'll see that films like The Painting, Jack and the Cuckoo-Clock Heart, and Haruka and the Magic Mirror have achieved some interesting things with CGI.

And I agree with the point about DreamWorks. In a lot of ways, they are misguided, and it's rare that I think they've made a truly good film. But they do allow for diverse visual styles that don't really get to happen quite as often at WDAS or Pixar.

Did Ariel's hair look like a red blob? Did Pocahontas' or Esmeralda's hair look like a black blob? There's no reason why Rapunzel's hair wouldn't look good in 2D animation. I find that an incredibly flimsy excuse perpetuated by Disney to justify making the movie in CG. Disney said that same thing about Frozen and Big Hero 6. That because of the ice and snow, Frozen had to be done in CG. That because of the action-sequences, BH6 had to be done in CG.

I agree that these are flimsy excuses as to why these films had to be in CG. They definitely didn't have to be. And that thing about it being the director's choice as to whether they want to work in CG or hand-drawn is a bunch of hooey, that's for sure. But if truly given the choice, I'm sure at least a few of the directors would be open to working in CGI. I mean, these films didn't have to be in CGI, but they don't have to be hand-drawn either. Plus, we can't deny the achievements they made with Rapunzel's hair, or the snow and ice in Frozen. They truly did some nice work in those aspects (though I would hope so given that they supposedly developed new technology to achieve those things.). That's not to say I wouldn't have wanted to see them traditionally animated, as I would have been ecstatic if they went that route. And something like BH6 would have been a great candidate for hand-drawn if they were really given that option.

But it is what it is, I guess. There are plenty of beautiful hand-drawn films being made between the indies and foreign films, so those are able to keep me happy with traditional animation for now. What I would like to see is Disney apply the Paperman/Feast style to a feature film, because their excuse for not doing that is also flimsy at best.

[Sotiris]

If CGI animation can make improvements by using 2D animation as a guideline, why wouldn't they make it part of their process?

I'm not arguing that they shouldn't; I'm simply pointing out the irony. There has been a lot of talk from both executives and creatives on how CG is superior to 2D animation (remember this?) so needing 2D animators and 2D animation to improve CG animation is quite ironic.

[ce1ticmoon]

I'm not arguing that they shouldn't; I'm simply pointing out the irony. There has been a lot of talk from both executives and creatives on how CG is superior to 2D animation (remember this?) so needing 2D animators and 2D animation to improve CG animation is quite ironic.

I think I already thoroughly explained myself on this point, and I conceded that maybe I'm just trying not to look at everything with a sense of cynicism and pessimism, but with that said, I still don't believe that that could possibly be the prevailing attitude among the animators and people in other creative positions, even if there are a few ignorant ones among them. CG animation sprouted from the legacy of traditional animation, so naturally, these creators would look toward that legacy when creating their own films. Executives and "decision makers" are a separate issue. I admit that it is ironic if you look at it from that standpoint, but again, the whole CGI versus traditional issue is out of the hands of the creatives. It's a done deal--they have to make a CGI film. So even if they respect and love traditional animation, and have a passion for it, they still have to make a CGI film. I just think that it is a disservice to these people to look at the situation with irony, when they are trying to do what is best within the parameters that are set.

And there are aspects in which CG is "superior" to, or more versatile than traditional animation. Some of these people may lack tact when they talk about these things, and surely they are expected to push the false narrative that making a CG film is a creative decision, but it isn't like they are completely making everything up when they mention the benefits of CG over hand-drawn. Of course, there are aspects in which hand-drawn is "superior" to CG as well, as evidenced by their use of traditional animators for the draw overs, which is often left unsaid. Unfortunately, as a company, they all have to sell the narrative, whether they believe it or not. I wouldn't take everything said by the creatives at face value. (After all, it was one of the directors that told us that the directors are able to choose the medium they want to work in, but we know how oh-so-blatantly-false that statement is.)

[unprincess]

It's a done deal--they have to make a CGI film. So even if they respect and love traditional animation, and have a passion for it, they still have to make a CGI film. I just think that it is a disservice to these people to look at the situation with irony, when they are trying to do what is best within the parameters that are set.

yeah I get what you're saying, its the best of a really lousy situation. And I would rather have something that looks like Frozen and Tangled over something like Shrek or Strange Magic...but a hybrid film would be even better.

Im kinda hoping they do something new and refreshing with the water in Moana b/c you just know they are gonna use the water as the excuse for why the film just had to be done in CGI. And water is one of those elements in animated films I always feel CGI makes too photo-realistic. Id like to see a looser more artistic take on that particular element.

[Sotiris]

Hmm...Interesting.

The Annecy event for Zootopia kicked off with producers Peter Del Vecho and Aimee Scribner introducing the amazing world of Disney with a video compilation. It showed highlights of all the decades of Disney feature films, which rather suspiciously mostly featured their CGI movies. Maybe they want us to forget about the 2D films, so can’t criticise them for making yet another CGI movie.

Source: http://www.skwigly.co.uk/disneys-zootop ... necy-2015/

[Disney's Divinity]

Or I don't know, maybe I just want to be an optimist because I'm tired of the endless cycle of pessimism that this thread always finds itself in.

I find it equally tiring to read optimists complaining that everyone doesn't spit out rainbows and sunshine 24/7, because that isn't any more fun to read or any more normal. Besides, it always feels like I'm reading a statement typed up by Disney themselves. They always find a way to skirt around anything truthful.

To be fair, you could also apply the same argument to hand-drawn animation. The big-eyed, musical, fairy tale Disney style is set in stone now.

It's true, many of Disney's hand-drawn characters look similar, but that's definitely not the case with Disney in the '90s-2000's. Hercules, Mulan, Pocahontas, The Emperor's New Groove, and Atlantis: The Lost Empire do not look typical Disney. Even Hunchback and Tarzan look fairly different from the norm you'd find in Cinderella, Peter Pan, TLM, B&tB, etc.. Much less the same than anything I've seen from 3D films, particularly Pixar.

So choosing CGI over hand-drawn can be a creative decision.

Who said it couldn't be?

Did Ariel's hair look like a red blob? Did Pocahontas' or Esmeralda's hair look like a black blob? There's no reason why Rapunzel's hair wouldn't look good in 2D animation. I find that an incredibly flimsy excuse perpetuated by Disney to justify making the movie in CG. Disney said that same thing about Frozen and Big Hero 6. That because of the ice and snow, Frozen had to be done in CG. That because of the action-sequences, BH6 had to be done in CG.

The movement of Ariel's hair is actually one of the most beautiful things about that film. And none of the snow effects in Frozen are any more beautiful that what you'd find in, say, Dalmatians or Bambi.

It [Moana] actually started as a hand-drawn movie back in 2011. Then it become a hybrid, and then just CG. So, it wan't creative decision in this case either.

Exactly. They wanted to make a hand-drawn film, but they weren't allowed the option that Disney pretend their directors have. So that's three films that the director's desire was usurped.

[Tangled]

Did Ariel's hair look like a red blob? Did Pocahontas' or Esmeralda's hair look like a black blob? There's no reason why Rapunzel's hair wouldn't look good in 2D animation. I find that an incredibly flimsy excuse perpetuated by Disney to justify making the movie in CG. Disney said that same thing about Frozen and Big Hero 6. That because of the ice and snow, Frozen had to be done in CG. That because of the action-sequences, BH6 had to be done in CG.

Here's the thing though: Ariel doesn't have 70 feet of hair, and her hair isn't a plot-point. Animators drawing a foot of hair flowing underwater? That's fine. That can be done beautifully. However, the longer the hair, the more an animator has to work to animate each individual strand in a realistic manner.

Plus, there's the whole texture thing. Perhaps "blob" wasn't a good word to use, but Ariel's hair isn't highly textured aside from some pencil strokes, because that would be too taxing on animators. Meanwhile, Rapunzel can have more highlighted, realistic hair with individual strands.

Don't lynch me, but I'll defend Tangled being in CGI to my grave. I genuinely think that that's the one CGI Disney movie where the CGI allowed the film-makers to truly push their creativity. The texture, lighting (3-D lanterns ), camera-work and water animation in that film made me feel as if the script was written to be animated in CGI. That's why I get defensive when people claim that an animator choosing CGI has no creative benefits over an animator choosing hand-drawn. Oh, they definitely do, but not all CGI films need those benefits to work. For example, Frozen's plot doesn't hinge on hair texture or complex lighting, unlike Tangled's. I can understand that hand-animating translucent ice could be a problem, but I can visualize a work-around, and I'm not even an artist.

[ce1ticmoon]

I find it equally tiring to read optimists complaining that everyone doesn't spit out rainbows and sunshine 24/7, because that isn't any more fun to read or any more normal. Besides, it always feels like I'm reading a statement typed up by Disney themselves. They always find a way to skirt around anything truthful.

I haven't really seen too many people around here defending Disney's every move or spitting out rainbows and sunshine and acting like everything's good. We all seem to have our fair share of gripes with the way things have gone and where they are headed, from what I've read around here.

[2Disney4Ever]

I find it equally tiring to read optimists complaining that everyone doesn't spit out rainbows and sunshine 24/7, because that isn't any more fun to read or any more normal. Besides, it always feels like I'm reading a statement typed up by Disney themselves. They always find a way to skirt around anything truthful.

I haven't really seen too many people around here defending Disney's every move or spitting out rainbows and sunshine and acting like everything's good. We all seem to have our fair share of gripes with the way things have gone and where they are headed, from what I've read around here.

Yeah, and I'm sure they've mostly been from me.

I don't even know this studio anymore. With every year that passes by, they're becoming less and less like the same Disney that taught me to love the art of hand-drawn animation the way that I do in the first place. They're not Disney to me anymore.

[Marky_198]

It is the "tangible" quality that makes it look bad. What is the point of real-life hair in animation?
That makes it look like dolls. The illusion of great animation lies not in "tangible" materials. More in the opposite.

[Sotiris]

Here's the thing though: Ariel doesn't have 70 feet of hair, and her hair isn't a plot-point. Animators drawing a foot of hair flowing underwater? That's fine. That can be done beautifully. However, the longer the hair, the more an animator has to work to animate each individual strand in a realistic manner.

I'm really not buying that. There's absolutely no indication whatsoever that Rapunzel's hair couldn't be done well in 2D. That's an ex post facto rationale. If The Little Mermaid had been done in CG, you'd be singing the same tune. That 2D animation couldn't possibly capture the movement of hair underwater or the texture of the hair when wet, etc.

Plus, there's the whole texture thing. Perhaps "blob" wasn't a good word to use, but Ariel's hair isn't highly textured aside from some pencil strokes, because that would be too taxing on animators. Meanwhile, Rapunzel can have more highlighted, realistic hair with individual strands.

Sure, but how exactly is that "better"? There's nothing intrinsically positive or objectively appealing with having hyper-realistic textures in animation. In fact, I would argue that it can be very unappealing at times.

What CG can do that 2D can't is mimic live-action filmmaking more faithfully. Textures, lighting, effects etc. However, that attribute in and of itself is not an inherently positive one. You cannot claim that because CG can achieve that, it's somehow better or superior to 2D animation. This is simply a matter of aesthetics which is entirely subjective.

Personally, I'm not impressed by realistic textures. The other day someone was going gaga over the details of Rapunzel's dress on Tumblr. What people may not know is that that's created by effects animators, not character animators and it's only created once and then simulated throughout the film. Whereas in 2D animation, every detail, accessory, and wrinkle of clothing is done by character animators and must be drawn and animated in every.single.frame. Now that impresses me.

The texture, lighting (3-D lanterns ), camera-work and water animation in that film made me feel as if the script was written to be animated in CGI.

I didn't get such a feeling. Besides, there still could be CG elements used to enhance scenes, like the lantern sequence, if it were a 2D-animated film just like it had been done countless of times before and very successfully too, I might add.

[Tangled]

I'm really not buying that. There's absolutely no indication whatsoever that Rapunzel's hair couldn't be done well in 2D. That's an ex post facto rationale. If The Little Mermaid had been done in CG, you'd be singing the same tune. That 2D animation couldn't possibly capture the movement of hair underwater or the texture of the hair when wet, etc.

I wasn't saying that it couldn't be done well in 2D though. Again, Ariel's hair is gorgeous. I'm thinking of the animators, here. You could ask a good traditional animator to animate 70 feet of hair, but it's just not logical. It may be logical if Rapunzel was simply standing and walking the entire movie, but when you bring complex movement like dancing, running, swinging, swimming etc. into the picture, then you have to account for how the each section of hair flows and drags behind Rapunzel. Computers can simulate that. Hand-drawn animators could attempt to Rotoscope it, which would be very impressive, but probably also more time and energy consuming. Animators have their limitations, as do computers.

I do think that too many people see 2D animators as superhuman artists. Disney animators may be the best at their craft, but they're still mortal.

Sure, but how exactly is that "better"? There's nothing intrinsically positive or objectively appealing with having hyper-realistic textures in animation. In fact, I would argue that it can be very unappealing at times.

Subjective. I find realistic textures unsettling too if the CGI human character models are really cartoony anyways (like, Hotel Transylvania or the Smurfs films). I just think that in Tangled (a rare film where the hair actually matters) the render artists used texture very well. Not-photo-realistic highlights and layering made the hair feel tangible without veering into uncanny valley. Plus, the hair retains its painterly, glossy texture while Rapunzel is moving.

Besides, there still could be CG elements used to enhance scenes, like the lantern sequence, if it were a 2D-animated film just like it had been done countless of times before and very successfully too, I might add.

Yeah, but as big and obvious as the emotional set-piece of the film? I think that the problem with the lanterns scene is the lighting. Getting the CGI light to shine properly on the water and the 2D characters could be difficult. My question is: what's the point? Tangled's CGI is great anyways. Tangled was probably intended to be "that one Disney fairy tale that was done in CGI" while it was in its long production (at the same time as the Princess and the Frog, I may add. So, Disney's artists were probably split). Then, it was a success. It sucks that it may have led to the dismissal of hand-drawn, and for that I feel somewhat bad about defending it. Still, I feel as though Tangled alone is creatively justified.

[2Disney4Ever]

Plus, there's the whole texture thing. Perhaps "blob" wasn't a good word to use, but Ariel's hair isn't highly textured aside from some pencil strokes, because that would be too taxing on animators. Meanwhile, Rapunzel can have more highlighted, realistic hair with individual strands.

Sure, but how exactly is that "better"? There's nothing intrinsically positive or objectively appealing with having hyper-realistic textures in animation. In fact, I would argue that it can be very unappealing at times.

What CG can do that 2D can't is mimic live-action filmmaking more faithfully. Textures, lighting, effects etc. However, that attribute in and of itself is not an inherently positive one. You cannot claim that because CG can achieve that, it's somehow better or superior to 2D animation. This is simply a matter of aesthetics which is entirely subjective.

Personally, I'm not impressed by realistic textures. The other day someone was going gaga over the details of Rapunzel's dress on Tumblr. What people may not know is that that's created by effects animators, not character animators and it's only created once and then simulated throughout the film. Whereas in 2D animation, every detail, accessory, and wrinkle of clothing is done by character animators and must be drawn and animated in every.single.frame. Now that impresses me.

You pretty much nailed one of my issues with CGI being considered superior to 2D animation because it "looks more real".

CG movies are practically obsessed with replicating the way things really look, down to every individual strand of hair, every texture of the skin/clothes, every tiny bit of gravel on the ground, and how real the water looks (which people could use as another argument for why Little Mermaid would "be better in CGI"), along with the whole three-dimensionality of the characters and sets as well. But when was the last time I ever really needed to see real life replicated down to every real looking detail when watching what's supposed to be a cartoon?

I thought the whole point of animation from it's very beginnings was that cartoons didn't look like real life and were a visual escape from it through abstract art. The beauty of hand-drawn animation (at least when it's done really well) is that the art captures the feeling and the essence of real life because of all the detailed work put into painting the backgrounds by hand, or the amount of detail put into drawing a character and the believability of how they move in animation. It feels real without looking real.

For those who are familiar with Ren & Stimpy creator John Kricfalusi and his blog, I remember one time he posted an image of the kitchen set in Ratatouille and asked "How does this look like a cartoon?". Another of his famous quotes on CGI was "Why do I need to pay money to see real looking water when I can get it out of my sink for free?". I have to say, he makes some pretty good points.

[Disney's Divinity]

Yeah, but as big and obvious as the emotional set-piece of the film? I think that the problem with the lanterns scene is the lighting. Getting the CGI light to shine properly on the water and the 2D characters could be difficult.

Uh, "Beauty and the Beast" with the 3D chandelier or Ariel's song with all its lighting effects?

Tangled was originally conceived as 3D--although as "Rapunzel" then, and still much more visually appealing than it ended up--so it doesn't bother me too much that it was made that way, but I don't feel wrong in saying that there's nothing in the film that couldn't have been done as successfully, if not better, with hand-drawn animation.

[Sotiris]

Tangled was originally conceived as 3D--although as "Rapunzel" then.

Actually, that one was conceived as 2D too. Glen Keane originally wanted to do it in hand-drawn animation but Michael Eisner wouldn't let him, remember? It's only after the fact, that Glen agreed to do it in CG and attempted to bring a hand-drawn aesthetic to CG animation.

[Disney's Divinity]

I completely forgot that, actually. The making of "Rapunzel" went on so long.

[disneyprincess11]

Well, this isn't helping anything

Hollywood Studios: Magic of Disney Animation closing next month

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/travel/a ... -post.html

[Sotiris]

There's going to be a panel at San Diego Comic-Con this year about 2D animation from Disney animators.

Disney Animators: The Power of 2D

A luminary panel of former and current Disney animators spanning from Lady and the Tramp to Moana talk about the importance of 2D animation in the history of Disney, as well as the part it plays in guiding advancement of its future. Panelists are Willie Ito (Lady and the Tramp, Inkpot Award-winning animator), Dale Baer (Robin Hood to Moana), Randy Haycock (The Lion King to Moana), Tom Sito (The Little Mermaid, author of Moving Innovation), Adam Dykstra (Tangled, Tarzan), and Mike Polvani (Hercules, 2D Animation School founder). Changes in technology, artistic expression, and the value of cooperative interplay between 2D and 3D artists to create the best animation will be discussed. There will be a Q&A moderated by Leslie Combemale (Animation expert, ArtInsights Gallery).

Friday July 10, 2015 / 1:30pm - 2:30pm / Room 24ABC

Source: http://comiccon2015.sched.org/event/e14 ... ZHIqhuqqko

[Wonderlicious]

Well, this isn't helping anything

Hollywood Studios: Magic of Disney Animation closing next month

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/travel/a ... -post.html

It's a shame, but given the fact there have been no animators - be they CG or 2D - there for over a decade now, it's not a big surprise. When I went to Walt Disney World as a child in the late 90s (and alas, that has been my only visit), the real thrill of the attraction was walking around a fully working animation studio and having a real animator doing a demonstration. If it's anything like the equivalent at Walt Disney Studios at Disneyland Paris, then it isn't a big deal. The Paris attraction isn't amazing; it's a clip-show, a very basic scripted and outdated demo and a gallery with a few interactive elements. The last time I went, I went and just looked at the gallery, but I suspected that some of the pieces on display may have been copies. It would be great if this gets replaced with a more engaging attraction on the legacy of Disney animation there that goes into detail of all animation techniques that Disney has experimented with (even stop motion). Better that than another queue for a character meet-and-greet.

[DancingCrab]

Yeah, I remember going in 1993 when Disney was working on The Lion King and Pocahontas. It was incredibly exciting to see them working on the next set of classics. Now it's just some lame scripted movie hosted by Mushu and a stripped down gallery/meet & greet area. Disney MGM Studios was cool when it opened, but overall the park has not aged well. I'm all for any updates/changes they have planned.