Hand-Drawn Animation Dead at Disney

[DisneyFan09]

OK, I know this will add fuel to the fire, but here it goes.

Did Pixar Kill Hand-Drawn Animation in the US?
http://www.rotoscopers.com/2015/07/27/d ... in-the-us/

[DisneyJedi]

OK, I know this will add fuel to the fire, but here it goes.

Did Pixar Kill Hand-Drawn Animation in the US?
http://www.rotoscopers.com/2015/07/27/d ... in-the-us/

Funny. I saw this yesterday, but I do think Pixar "killing" a once popular medium is rather debatable.

[unprincess]

nah I think Shrek was more responsible for killing 2d than Pixar. I think when Shrek became a hit that's when other studios said "who needs 2d!" then Ice Age became a hit and then, of Disney's 2d films of that period only Lilo and Stitch did really well. The others flopped, Dreamworks own 2d films flopped, and more studios just jumped on the CGI bandwagon.

also I hate the excuse of "the 2d films flopped b/c the stories were bad." That's b.s., if bad stories are the culprit, why have so many crappy CGI films become huge hits despite having AWFUL stories/writing?

[Mooky]

I think there are multiple factors, actually:

1. The biggest and the saddest one being that Disney themselves killed it by oversaturating the market with cheapquels. By doing that, their theatrical hand-drawn films lost the event-status they once had as most people -- being unable to differentiate between theatrical and DTV quality hand-drawn animation -- opted for seeing CG films on the big screen and renting/buying hand-drawn films on DVD.

2. High-profile releases like Shrek and South Park with their crude jokes showed that animation is not a family thing only. Many people still think animation is a kids' thing and cringe at the thought of romance and musicals; just imagine how it was back then when Disney was practically the only mainstream option. Regardless of actual quality, Shrek and SP were a breath of fresh air to movie-going audiences.

3. The enormous success of Shrek gave producers the idea that it was solely because it was a CG movie, so of course the focus shifted from hand-drawn productions to all-CG ones (much like Tangled's success lead to cancellation of the hand-drawn Frozen). It's no wonder that studios which had little to no success with hand-drawn films benefited from this shift to CG while Disney was still finding their course.

4. CG was a novelty, pure and simple. People like new, shiny things and are beyond fascinated with what tech can do, so of course CGI found a firm standing ground in our technology-obsessed culture. Avatar didn't earn all that money for its story, you know.

All these factors played off one another and in the end hand-drawn animation got the short end of the stick out of it.

[Semaj]

nah I think Shrek was more responsible for killing 2d than Pixar. I think when Shrek became a hit that's when other studios said "who needs 2d!" then Ice Age became a hit and then, of Disney's 2d films of that period only Lilo and Stitch did really well. The others flopped, Dreamworks own 2d films flopped, and more studios just jumped on the CGI bandwagon.

Not to mention, Shrek's blatant anti-Disney agenda only added salt to Disney's wounds.

also I hate the excuse of "the 2d films flopped b/c the stories were bad." That's b.s., if bad stories are the culprit, why have so many crappy CGI films become huge hits despite having AWFUL stories/writing?

A few of the very same 2D films of that period that initially failed have since gained some ground thru TV and video. (Iron Giant, Emperor's New Groove, Osmosis Jones) It's sometimes the marketing that sinks these films rather than the films themselves. Warner Bros. is particularly terrible with handling animated features; prior to The Lego Movie, they've had middling success with sporadic attempts at CGI, which followed a long string of 2D films that suffered from poor marketing, including The Powerpuff Girls Movie and Looney Tunes Back in Action.

[DisneyFan09]

Funny. I saw this yesterday, but I do think Pixar "killing" a once popular medium is rather debatable.

I actually think this article somewhat nailed what caused the demise of hand drawn animation. While it's of course not single-handedly Pixar's fault, at least Pixar made the ball rolling. But taking Lasseter's leadership to consideration, it's tempting to blame him, considering the hate he's getting here. And to add fuel to the fire; I remember seeing a interview with him during Toy Story's release about hand drawn vs CGI. And he described CGI as superior in every single way.

Either way, to finally give my thoughts; The demise of hand drawn was something that happened gradually. Although it would be easy to blame the hand drawn films (certainly in "Pocahontas" case, considering that it was released in the same year of "Toy Story" and that "Pocahontas" had a smaller appeal). Remember that CGI animation was invigorating at the time, so it increased the publics interest. The problem wasn't the quality of the hand drawn films. The CGI films of that time had a wider appeal to the mass public (though I personally thought Pixar were getting more praise than deserved, along with the overrated likes of "Shrek" and "Ice Age"). But it's indeed remarkable that "Lilo & Stitch" was the only one who actually was a hit, while "Treasure Planet" tanking just five months later (probably because "Lilo" was marketed cleverly, while "Planet" could be seen as an "Atlantis"-rip off). The other suffered from poor release dates, but at least "The Princess and the Frog" was a bigger hit than it's former predecessors.

Another potential reason may be the overall stimga animation always had. Considering how CGI films had a wider appeal, they were therefore depicted as more adult-friendly than hand drawn. It's not to dismiss the hand drawn films for children, but remember Disney were the biggest household name in animation at the 90's. And several of their counterparts from other studios were mostly Disney rip-offs. This may be a vague reason, but still.

I don't think hand drawn animation is entirely dead. Not yet. As naive at it may sound, I think it can return someday. The dilemma is that the studios must be willing to risk again on it and release it at the right time.

[estefan]

I don't blame the audience, but more-so the parent companies and higher-ups for thinking irrationally and not realising their marketing made certain films under-perform (somebody mentioned Warner Brothers above, whose marketing was almost always horrendous). As previously pointed out, the Lilo & Stitch marketing was brilliant and fresh. Treasure Planet just looked like an attempt to pander to the teenage crowd and it looked too similar to Atlantis which many audience members were underwhelmed by.

I think Fox was the first to get the ball rolling when they responded to Titan AE flopping by shutting down the Don Bluth-run studio in Arizona, rather than just giving them another chance. Maybe his Ice Age could have been just as successful as the Blue Sky-made one that was later produced.

[DisneyFan09]

I think the audience should be blamed, haha! It's partly their fault as well, though I won't sound bitter or dismissive.

[unprincess]

hah yeah I partly blame audiences too, they have LOUSY tastes.

Maybe his Ice Age could have been just as successful as the Blue Sky-made one that was later produced.

was Bluth originally supposed to make Ice Age?! I think I would have loved it! it would have been like Land Before Time but set in the Pleistocene era!

[tweeb²]

I'm gonna take a lot of heat for what I'm going to say, but a lot of what happened that made 2d look obsolete had to do with Disney, and Disney alone. The cheapquels. Using the same formula every time they could. As it will happen with all this comic franchises you have to change, to innovate, Disney changed formulas now with Big Hero 6 or Wreck it Ralph. Disney making movies with the same cliches for almost 20 years while the others went as far as to make fun of them for repeating the same patterns (Shrek) made them look old and dated.

It may be bad for 2d, but Lasseter helped the studio to try new things in terms of storytelling, even with Frozen they didn't use the same formula to a t. You have to change things, maybe in the future the old formula may seem new again, it happens from time to time.

As for animation I hope that some new film, using something totally new (new software, or whatever) will make a new 2d film that will make audiences say "hey, but that was old and dated, how it looks so cool now?" and it will be a brand new thing again.

[2Disney4Ever]

These arguments on why hand-drawn declined are all well and good, but I guess the only thing I really care about anymore is knowing what it will take to actually FIX this problem. For good.

Of course the first thing that always comes to my mind is that Disney simply needs to shut down their CG movies and go back to being the kind of studio I thought they were when they were making Princess and the Frog: a studio actually trying to make a difference. Nobody asked for two animation studios from Disney (WDAS and Pixar) to only make their movies under the exact same medium. I didn't anyway. If you're really wanting to bring hand-drawn back, you shouldn't jinx it afterwards by still wanting to put out your own CG movies also. You should be dead set on your goal. That's why Tangled was a liability waiting to happen.

But don't worry about me. There will be no more fighting over it here (even if I still have to argue about it elsewhere). As hopeless as it seems sometimes, I will just continue to try and be optimistic that things will improve one day, but I will only be spending my time watching hand-drawn movies until they do.

1. The biggest and the saddest one being that Disney themselves killed it by oversaturating the market with cheapquels. By doing that, their theatrical hand-drawn films lost the event-status they once had as most people -- being unable to differentiate between theatrical and DTV quality hand-drawn animation -- opted for seeing CG films on the big screen and renting/buying hand-drawn films on DVD.

Funny thing is, that kind of reasoning can work the other way too. Just look at me: after putting up with the oversaturation of CG movies for so long, I eventually grew to hate them with a passion, and now I've retreated back to watching nothing but hand-drawn movies instead.

[DisneyFan09]

I'm gonna take a lot of heat for what I'm going to say, but a lot of what happened that made 2d look obsolete had to do with Disney, and Disney alone. The cheapquels. Using the same formula every time they could.

That's a very valid statement. However, Disney broke the formula in the early 2000's and with the exception of "Lilo & Stitch", none of them broke the box office.

[Disney's Divinity]

It may be bad for 2d, but Lasseter helped the studio to try new things in terms of storytelling, even with Frozen they didn't use the same formula to a t. You have to change things, maybe in the future the old formula may seem new again, it happens from time to time.

While I agree that the company has to do new things, that's not what's happened with their new (successful) films. All they've done is borrow the Pixar formula that was used for a decade prior and throw music, female characters, and fairytales into the mix. So far, there hasn't really been anything innovative about their new films. The formula from the '90s was exhausted, but so is the Pixar one--and yet nobody ever calls it out. If anything, Disney started to really bomb at the box office when they abandoned musicals and chased after the male demographic, and only started to be successful again when the Broadway numbers returned.

[DisneyFan09]

The formula from the '90s was exhausted, but so is the Pixar one--and yet nobody ever calls it out.

Finally someone else who realizes how worn-out the Pixar formula has been! Where have you've been all my life? Haha!

I think it's pretty unfair that Disney always gets called out for reusing their formula, while Pixar doesn't. I know that Pixar has many intense (and dense) fanboys that are ready to attack everyone who criticize them and are bragging about them at the expense of Disney. Most of the arguments I hear about Disney vs Pixar is how Pixar create new stories as opposed to Disney and how genious they are. Well, although Pixar never made a truly bad movie until "Cars 2" (and yes, I'll exclude my nagging of it this time), they weren't particularly as flawless as people made them to be (in my opinion). Even the delightful "Up" had some story problems (to make Muntz a villain was just plain unnecessary, when he was a catalyst for the events. And what about the talking dogs? Even the highly overrated "Toy Story 3" had a villain that wasn't particularly needed or well developed). Disney makes villains much better than Pixar and while Pixar does have less restrictions, I never thought their ingenuity was that groundbreaking.

It may seem as I'm slamming Pixar and while I do like some of their films (they certainly can make a great film once in a while) I think they've got way more praise than they've deserved. And often at the expense of Disney. And that sucks.

While I agree that the company has to do new things, that's not what's happened with their new (successful films). All they've done is borrow the Pixar formula that was used for a decade prior and throw music, female characters, and fairytales into the mix. So far, there hasn't really been anything innovative about their new films. If anything, Disney started to really bomb at the box office when they abandoned musicals and chased after the male demographic, and only started to be successful again when the Broadway numbers returned.

That's true and it's kind of funny, actually. How the non-formulaic films from the early 2000's were neglected, despite actually taking devations from the formula (which Disney was called out for). With the exception of the commercial success "Lilo & Stitch", of course.
But remember "Wreck-It-Ralph" and "Big Hero 6" did well at box office, despite not relying completely of the formula (althoug they had components from the formula, of course).

To give an theory of why the Lasseter-fairy tales were bigger Box Office hits than the other 2000's films, is because of the absence of them. Disney hadn't done a traditional, formulaic Disney film since "Tarzan". It gave the audience the chance to long for them again. Remember that "Enchanted" (which had animated segments) was a minor hit. And although "The Princess and the Frog" never broke the Box Office, at least it made the ball rolling (and I'll dare to claim the huge success of the Princess franchise helped). Of course there are several theories of why "Tangled" and "Frozen" were huge hits, but that's my theory.

[Tristy]

While I agree that the company has to do new things, that's not what's happened with their new (successful films). All they've done is borrow the Pixar formula that was used for a decade prior and throw music, female characters, and fairytales into the mix. So far, there hasn't really been anything innovative about their new films. The formula from the '90s was exhausted, but so is the Pixar one--and yet nobody ever calls it out. If anything, Disney started to really bomb at the box office when they abandoned musicals and chased after the male demographic, and only started to be successful again when the Broadway numbers returned.

Finally someone else who realizes how worn-out the Pixar formula has been! Where have you've been all my life? Haha!

I think it's pretty unfair that Disney always gets called out for reusing their formula, while Pixar doesn't. I know that Pixar has many intense (and dense) fanboys that are ready to attack everyone who criticize them and are bragging about them at the expense of Disney. Most of the arguments I hear about Disney vs Pixar is how Pixar create new stories as opposed to Disney and how genious they are. Well, although Pixar never made a truly bad movie until "Cars 2" (and yes, I'll exclude my nagging of it this time), they weren't particularly as flawless as people made them to be (in my opinion). Even the delightful "Up" had some story problems (to make Muntz a villain was just plain unnecessary, when he was a catalyst for the events. And what about the talking dogs? Even the highly overrated "Toy Story 3" had a villain that wasn't particularly needed or well developed). Disney makes villains much better than Pixar and while Pixar does have less restrictions, I never thought their ingenuity was that groundbreaking.

It may seem as I'm slamming Pixar and while I do like some of their films (they certainly can make a great film once in a while) I think they've got way more praise than they've deserved. And often at the expense of Disney. And that sucks.

Something that a friend of mine said was that Up felt two completely different movies. One being the sad tale of a man coping with the loss of his wife and the other is an Indiana Jones film which is something I agree with. I don't dislike Pixar myself. They have made a lot of good movies. But what bothers me is the amount of praise about them new and inspiring and while the concepts themselves are intriguing, they're all buddy movies, most of them have a twist villain that at this point is not new anymore, and they try a little too hard to get to the emotions. And let's not even start with the amount of awards they've gotten at the Oscars. But that is just my opinion.

[DisneyFan09]

Something that a friend of mine said was that Up felt two completely different movies. One being the sad tale of a man coping with the loss of his wife and the other is an Indiana Jones film which is something I agree with.

I don't consider the "Indiana Jones"-premise to be a flaw. On the contrary, it could've meshed well with the already compelling premise of Carl's sorrow. I just felt the talking dogs were extraneous. And why making Carl the villain, when he was a main catalyst for Carl's journey?

I don't dislike Pixar myself. They have made a lot of good movies. But what bothers me is the amount of praise about them new and inspiring and while the concepts themselves are intriguing, they're all buddy movies, most of them have a twist villain that at this point is not new anymore, and they try a little too hard to get to the emotions. And let's not even start with the amount of awards they've gotten at the Oscars. But that is just my opinion.

At least "A Bugs Life", "The Incredibles", "Wall-E" and "Brave" broke the buddy formula, but otherwise it's a premise which Pixar has relied too heavinly upon. At least Pixar shall have praise for expanding their horizons when they can and having intriguing premises. But the thing is that Pixar has been praised to death, both by critics and hostile fanboys. Personally I thought Pixar could've expanded their horizons even more. "Brave" could've done that (but it has received much flack for it already). And even "Inside Out" could've gone further with it, in my opinion.

[tweeb²]

The formula from the '90s was exhausted, but so is the Pixar one--and yet nobody ever calls it out.

Finally someone else who realizes how worn-out the Pixar formula has been! Where have you've been all my life? Haha!

I think it's pretty unfair that Disney always gets called out for reusing their formula, while Pixar doesn't. I know that Pixar has many intense (and dense) fanboys that are ready to attack everyone who criticize them and are bragging about them at the expense of Disney. Most of the arguments I hear about Disney vs Pixar is how Pixar create new stories as opposed to Disney and how genious they are. Well, although Pixar never made a truly bad movie until "Cars 2" (and yes, I'll exclude my nagging of it this time), they weren't particularly as flawless as people made them to be (in my opinion). Even the delightful "Up" had some story problems (to make Muntz a villain was just plain unnecessary, when he was a catalyst for the events. And what about the talking dogs? Even the highly overrated "Toy Story 3" had a villain that wasn't particularly needed or well developed). Disney makes villains much better than Pixar and while Pixar does have less restrictions, I never thought their ingenuity was that groundbreaking.

It may seem as I'm slamming Pixar and while I do like some of their films (they certainly can make a great film once in a while) I think they've got way more praise than they've deserved. And often at the expense of Disney. And that sucks.

While I agree that the company has to do new things, that's not what's happened with their new (successful films). All they've done is borrow the Pixar formula that was used for a decade prior and throw music, female characters, and fairytales into the mix. So far, there hasn't really been anything innovative about their new films. If anything, Disney started to really bomb at the box office when they abandoned musicals and chased after the male demographic, and only started to be successful again when the Broadway numbers returned.

That's true and it's kind of funny, actually. How the non-formulaic films from the early 2000's were neglected, despite actually taking devations from the formula (which Disney was called out for). With the exception of the commercial success "Lilo & Stitch", of course.
But remember "Wreck-It-Ralph" and "Big Hero 6" did well at box office, despite not relying completely of the formula (althoug they had components from the formula, of course).

I'll agree that the "buddy comedy" thing it's getting really old by now. The thing that saves them is that they apply it in some weird places (can we all say that when you heard the premise of Up we thought they pushed too far?? I did!) and that is what made them look fresh that long, but yeah they should change a bit more. In the case of Disney, they made everything as a fairy tale, with movies coming out every year. Even without the cheapquels in the mix, no matter how you twist it, it started to look formulaic and all the same faster.

As for the 1st half of the 2000's Disney movies, I may say that maybe they changed too radically too fast and too late for the audience to catch on? I've never seen emperors New Groove or Treasure Island, It just never felt they where interesting. It may been a factor that I was on my late teens at that time and I wasn't watching as much animation as I used to. But even when I was on that "I'm old for Disney animated movies" mindset, I felt that Lilo & Stitch was really good and exciting from the first trailer I ever saw, and I love that movie to this day.

[disneyphilip]

Huh, I don't think anyone has any evidence it was them.

No, there are no evidence; it's just an educated guess on my part. When Andreas was asked to tell who those two were, he laughed and said "You would love that, wouldn't you?". Also, the way he stressed "top top" management is telling. The fact there were two executives together is also suspicious because at the time Lasseter and Catmull came and went to the studio together. Also, during that time, there weren't any other top management people that Andreas would know well enough to feel saddened and disappointed by their behavior. Add all of these to the fact that Lasseter and Catmull are major hypocrites who pretend to be friends with the creatives only to stab them in the back when it suits them, there's no doubt in my mind they were the two management people Andreas was talking about.

They're not hypocrites! Quit picking on them! And it probably wasn't them anyway!

[DisneyFan09]

As for the 1st half of the 2000's Disney movies, I may say that maybe they changed too radically too fast and too late for the audience to catch on? I've never seen emperors New Groove or Treasure Island, It just never felt they where interesting. It may been a factor that I was on my late teens at that time and I wasn't watching as much animation as I used to. But even when I was on that "I'm old for Disney animated movies" mindset, I felt that Lilo & Stitch was really good and exciting from the first trailer I ever saw, and I love that movie to this day.

I was also on my late teens at the early 2000's, which may be a reason that I applauded the devations from the formula. But it's a pity that the other films from the 2000's never performed as well, considering that I felt most of them (with the exception of "Brother Bear") were better, stronger and more compelling than "Lilo & Stitch" (yes, even the much panned "Home on the Range" was quite cute, in my opinion).

There are definitively parts of "Lilo & Stitch" that I love and the movie had an interesting and intriguing premise, but was executed quite poorly. The script is quite clunky and cluttered (especially after the second half). The plotline of Lilo's struggles, as well with her relationship with Nani and Cobra Bubbles, was a compelling and strong enough plotline for an entire movie. Although I know Stitch was the initial creation, he was the third wheel. I know he was supposed to be a scientific project devoided for emotions, but he did nothing for the family besides constantly making it worse for them. And when you thought he had learned his lesson (when he actually leaves Lilo with the "Ugly Duckling" book), he escapes to her house and ruins for her again when Jumba chases him (heck, I loved when Lilo finally woke up and punched him when he revealed his alien form).

There's absolutely no chemistry or dynamic between the two leads, an dynamic that was highly improved in the superior and underrated tv show (heck, I think it's unfair the tv show got bashed at the expense of the movie, when it was a quite cute, enjoyable and at times hilarious show). Lilo is the catalyst of the relationship, but Stitch never warms up to her until the very end, despite all the damage he's caused the family. When he decides to rescue Lilo, it seems more of pity for Nani than concern for Lilo (who actually defended him the entire time). What also annoyed me is how the movie was practically forcing the audience to feel sorry for Stitch for his lack of family and belonging. And while Lilo gets some pity as well, it's more emotionally reasonable to feel sorry for her (at least she's experienced an real, actual trauma).

And yes, I know I'm repeating myself. But I wanted to really elaborate on this. I thought "Lilo & Stitch" suffered from a weak and cluttered screenplay that really hampered the movie. While some people have called it out for it, the screenplay has received quite praise as well.

[DisneyEra]

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/03/disneys- ... gical.html

This is why a future of 2D Features at Disney is just not likely. They're making a killing with their established franchises. They predict a $2.2 Billion worldwide gross for Star Wars TFA. They are pulling in so much $$$ they can do a write-off of $130 million for the flop Tomorrowland & no effect they're bottom line.