Do I hear the sound of Walt spinning in his cryo-unit?
It must be due to this report I found on Toonzone.net,
http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=123092
Disney Farming Out Hand-drawn Animated Features
Well, it's not a disaster. Nobody seems to mind how Disney "farmed out" (in effect) it's early CGI films to Pixar. And most still want Disney to continue to distribute Pixar's films.
As for Walt turning in his grave, well Walt was a realist. If you look at the Lone Chipmonks short on the Davey Crockett twin pack, it is actually very, very poor. I would say it was a lower quality than Disney's animated TV series in the 90's. Pete especially comes off poorly, his design being simplified so much he looks off-model throughout, and he also suffers from repeated animated sequences. And yet this short was made when Walt was alive and well. Yet he knew the market for shorts was disappearing fast and that it was impractical to spend the same time and money as was spent in the 40's.
And like it or not, people don't see traditional animation in the same light as they do CGI. And it's nothing to do with story or characters. It's just the current fad (and hopefully like most fads, it will pass).
There's something wrong when a film barely over an hour costs over $100m to make (Home on the Range) and it's clear that this situation cannot go on - it was sheer madness.
I know people will automatically point to "executive interference" which is undoubtably a major problem. I don't dispute that. But it's not always a case of just letting the animators animate. Look at the comments about "black Friday" on the Aladdin doc. Remember how Aladdin was changed to make Aladdin older? That was an expense, and presumably resulted in a better picture.
It is actually good news. Contracting out doesn't mean they'll automatically be using people in Korea or India, and even if they do, they will most likely use a superior budget.
I hope Disney Australia gets a chance to make an "original" animated film, with a decent sized budget. (I would rather see this, than new studios making the films).
Nobody knows how these new pictures will look, animate or play. Reserve judgement until they are released.
As for Walt turning in his grave, well Walt was a realist. If you look at the Lone Chipmonks short on the Davey Crockett twin pack, it is actually very, very poor. I would say it was a lower quality than Disney's animated TV series in the 90's. Pete especially comes off poorly, his design being simplified so much he looks off-model throughout, and he also suffers from repeated animated sequences. And yet this short was made when Walt was alive and well. Yet he knew the market for shorts was disappearing fast and that it was impractical to spend the same time and money as was spent in the 40's.
And like it or not, people don't see traditional animation in the same light as they do CGI. And it's nothing to do with story or characters. It's just the current fad (and hopefully like most fads, it will pass).
There's something wrong when a film barely over an hour costs over $100m to make (Home on the Range) and it's clear that this situation cannot go on - it was sheer madness.
I know people will automatically point to "executive interference" which is undoubtably a major problem. I don't dispute that. But it's not always a case of just letting the animators animate. Look at the comments about "black Friday" on the Aladdin doc. Remember how Aladdin was changed to make Aladdin older? That was an expense, and presumably resulted in a better picture.
It is actually good news. Contracting out doesn't mean they'll automatically be using people in Korea or India, and even if they do, they will most likely use a superior budget.
I hope Disney Australia gets a chance to make an "original" animated film, with a decent sized budget. (I would rather see this, than new studios making the films).
Nobody knows how these new pictures will look, animate or play. Reserve judgement until they are released.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
ichabod
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4676
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 8:29 am
- Location: The place where they didn't build EuroDisney
- Contact:
I agree 100%, considering the limited budget, soem of their films are quite good! I would also love to see this! A much more productive use of time than creating cheapquels!2099net wrote:I hope Disney Australia gets a chance to make an "original" animated film, with a decent sized budget. (I would rather see this, than new studios making the films).
I know I'm new here, but my opinion is the result of 2D films losing money and CGI making money were the result of people rejecting bad movies in favor of good movies. After all, "Brother Bear" and "Lilo & Stitch" made money because they were good movies and people like to pay to see good movies. Yet "Home on The Range," "Teachers Pet," "Sinbad," and some other 2D films bombed because they were bad movies (or at the very least average). I believe that all it will take is a wave of bad CGI films to hit that market and bomb which will end Hollywood's love affair with CGI animation (like this upcoming movie for example). But that's just some new guys opinion.2099net wrote:Well, it's not a disaster. Nobody seems to mind how Disney "farmed out" (in effect) it's early CGI films to Pixar. And most still want Disney to continue to distribute Pixar's films.
As for Walt turning in his grave, well Walt was a realist. If you look at the Lone Chipmonks short on the Davey Crockett twin pack, it is actually very, very poor. I would say it was a lower quality than Disney's animated TV series in the 90's. Pete especially comes off poorly, his design being simplified so much he looks off-model throughout, and he also suffers from repeated animated sequences. And yet this short was made when Walt was alive and well. Yet he knew the market for shorts was disappearing fast and that it was impractical to spend the same time and money as was spent in the 40's.
And like it or not, people don't see traditional animation in the same light as they do CGI. And it's nothing to do with story or characters. It's just the current fad (and hopefully like most fads, it will pass).
There's something wrong when a film barely over an hour costs over $100m to make (Home on the Range) and it's clear that this situation cannot go on - it was sheer madness.
I know people will automatically point to "executive interference" which is undoubtably a major problem. I don't dispute that. But it's not always a case of just letting the animators animate. Look at the comments about "black Friday" on the Aladdin doc. Remember how Aladdin was changed to make Aladdin older? That was an expense, and presumably resulted in a better picture.
It is actually good news. Contracting out doesn't mean they'll automatically be using people in Korea or India, and even if they do, they will most likely use a superior budget.
I hope Disney Australia gets a chance to make an "original" animated film, with a decent sized budget. (I would rather see this, than new studios making the films).
Nobody knows how these new pictures will look, animate or play. Reserve judgement until they are released.
It's not fair to simply dismiss <i>Teacher's Pet</i> - according to Rottentomatoes.com, the film received about twice as many favorable reviews (76%) as did <i>Brother Bear</i> (39%). Outside of <i>Sinbad</i>, which I've not seen, I think every 2D film you mentioned has some artistic merit. Some more than others, but I don't think we can so neatly drop them into a "good" and "not good" category. Where does the blame lie then? It's easy to say marketing, but we can't cite particular failures there. In the case of <i>Teacher's Pet</i>, the movie comes from a critically-acclaimed and Emmy-winning TV series...that had been off the air for years.KevinTRod wrote:I know I'm new here, but my opinion is the result of 2D films losing money and CGI making money were the result of people rejecting bad movies in favor of good movies. After all, "Brother Bear" and "Lilo & Stitch" made money because they were good movies and people like to pay to see good movies. Yet "Home on The Range," "Teachers Pet," "Sinbad," and some other 2D films bombed because they were bad movies (or at the very least average). I believe that all it will take is a wave of bad CGI films to hit that market and bomb which will end Hollywood's love affair with CGI animation (like this upcoming movie for example). But that's just some new guys opinion.
As little value as I think there is to the claim that "people don't want 2D animated films" anymore, it may be difficult to prove that the statistics are lying that "people would rather see 3D computer animated films than 2D animated films."
But, nonetheless, any extreme trend to all 3D computer animation is bound to see "the return of 2D" at some point in the near future. I don't think that medium is just going to stop turning up in theaters so easily.
Oh, and welcome to the forum, Kevin!
"Fifteen years from now, when people are talking about 3-D, they will talk about the business before 'Monsters vs. Aliens' and the business after 'Monsters vs. Aliens.' It's the line in the sand." - Greg Foster, IMAX chairman and president
I think Luke's explained it very well there. There is evidence people would rarther see CGI animation. You only have to look at the opening weekend grosses. Way before the quality of the movie is ever known or discussed. CGI movies constantly post higher opening weekends. Look at the (generally) critically panned Shark Tale opening compared to Home on the Range, or even Brother Bear. Like I say, like it or not, the general trend is for the public to support CGI animation more than handdrawn.Luke wrote: As little value as I think there is to the claim that "people don't want 2D animated films" anymore, it may be difficult to prove that the statistics are lying that "people would rather see 3D computer animated films than 2D animated films."
Now to end of a more postitive note, its well known that Chris Saunders and Dean Deblois have set up their own production company, and I'm pretty sure I read somewhere Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise were either thinking of, or had, set up their own production company, and of course there's Legacy Animation. Who's to say bringing in an outside animation studio won't be bringing in a company run by ex-Disney employees? Who's to say it won't involve them rehiring many ex-Disney staffers?
It shouldn't really be that big of an issue. Disney's live action films are almost always "farmed out" to other production studios. Yes, it could be a way for Disney to simply save money. Yes, it could be a way for Disney to ship the work to India or similar. But it could also be the only way to get full-length handdrawn animated films funded and made in America too (while also saving a bit of money, or at least spreading the risk).
After all if you were an animator who had just been "let go" by Disney, would you eager to go back to work for them? Doing it this way may be the only way for Disney to do traditional animation these days.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database