Anybody else disappointed about Disney's decision...

[Ekvolizer]

...to screw the traditional 2d style of animation in favor of the more "modern" CGI films?

I know that it REALLY went downhill in the later years, but what about about "the man who started it all"? I can actually see poor Walt turn in his ice grave because of this decision. It's just that I can't imagine my all time favorite classic's "Beauty & the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King" in 3D. It just wouldn't feel right.

The thing I'm not a big fan of is the fact that they're taking a somewhat realistic approach with their Pixar style offerings, which seems too mimic "live action films" too much. Now, don't get me wrong, both styles are great in their own right, but why not have them both?

Since this is kinda old news, i'm afraid that it may have been discussed before... in that case I'm sorry.

[Christian]

There's a lot of rumors out there. Somehow I have the feeling that Disney will never completely do away with 2D, traditional, hand-drawn animation but people think that just because Mickey's Twice Upon A Christmas was just released and was CGI that that must mean Disney will only do CGI from now on and somehow I doubt that will be the case . . . no matter what Eisner said. He'll be gone by 2006.

[Wonderlicious]

In a few years time, a new golden age for 2D animation will come and will produce hit after hit after hit.

That's my predictions...

[The Monkey's Uncle]

2-D is just in hybernation. people will soon realize that its not the medium that make a movie popular, but story and heart.

[quiden]

Now don't get me wrong, I love 2D animation and it's unfortunate that disney seems to be saying goodbye to it for it's mainstream theatrical releases, but I don't think I would necessarily say that Disney is turning over in his grave

Walt Disney was an innovator. It was his studio run by him that developed multi-cel animation. It was he that made the 5-year deal with Universal for exclusive cartoon rights to color so that he would be the only studio putting out cartoons in color. Remember Xerography? the technique that made possible the reproduction of so many dogs with spots in 101 Dalmations? That was a technique pioneered by Disney's company run by him. And even after his death, it was his company run by Katzenberg, Roy E. Disney and, yes, Michael Eisner who put out such groundbreaking "new era" animated films as The Great Mouse Detective, Oliver and Company and The Little Mermaid which were the first to employ 3D animation. I'm not sure which was the first movie to forego traditional cell coloring and photography, but I think it was Beauty and the Beast that was first assembled digitally.

What my point is, is that 3D may be a very natural evolutionary step in this form of entertainment that we all love. Since the late 80s, there certainly haven't been any Disney "2D" animated movies that haven't had it in them in some form. It's possible, that if Walt Disney were still around that it would have been his company that would have developed and pushed the envelope and would have developed Toy Story all on their own in the first place, before Pixar ever thought about it.

As I said before, Disney was an innovator. I don't think there's anyone who would say that putting beautiful images on the screen and telling a thoughtful story is anything but what he tried to do throughout his whole life. To think that he would cling to a technique or technology purely for sentimental reasons, I think, is to not understand what he was trying to do with his life.

[Christian]

People will soon realize that its not the medium that make a movie popular, but story and heart.

Fortunately people already know that. There is nothing wrong with tinkering around with technology. Sure, Twice Upon a Christmas is CGI but Mulan II will be hand-drawn. And Pooh's Heffalump movie will be. (It doesn't matter that these aren't theatrical releases; I am bringing them up because they are DTVs just like TUaC is, and lots of people were having heart attacks over TUaC ringing the death knell for any sort of Disney 2D animation.)

[ichabod]

There are rumours that there could be a 2D film in the works!

See This Thread for information, all though don't forget this isn't official!

[SNERWW22785]

It's always an interesting question, how would Walt himself have responded to CG-animation?

He would have embraced it, in my opinion. Disney was constantly seeking to be on the cutting edge of the film industry, pushing the developments of new technology and innovation in the style of animation, whether it was surround sound (Fantasia) or the "Xerox Process" (101 Dalmatians).

Just the same, I don't think you can say for sure how Walt would have handled 2-D in the wake of the advent of CGI. Not just a tech wizard, also as a storyteller, Disney always took his cues from the audience. Would he have scrapped 2-D as a theatrically viable endeavor? Probably not. But he probably would be right up there with those arguing to push the CG envelope.

[Ekvolizer]

I really hope it's true that it isn't confirmed yet.

I also forgot to mention that I don't mind CGI used in traditional films as long as they blend together with the backgrounds and aren't too noticeable like they were in Atlantis and Treasure Planet. But the tiger head in Aladdin was awesome for fex.

[quiden]

I also forgot to mention that I don't mind CGI used in traditional films as long as they blend together with the backgrounds and aren't too noticeable like they were in Atlantis and Treasure Planet.

I agree. I think the first, best use of CG for backgrounds was in Tarzan. I loved how the leaves and branches still looked painted, but they moved. I thought that was much better than the almost photo realistic ballroom in Beauty and the Beast. I know that ballroom was a breakthrough, and it was great, but it seems too real and I'm sure they would do it differently if they were going to do it again, now that their technique is better.

[DreamerQ18]

Yeah I remember that very idea being my first post and thread 2-D being over but I agree with most here I dont think its completly gone. The whole idea odf doing movies using the computer is sort of like a new toy you know everyone wants it and you lay with that toy non stop and you wear it out. And Computer animiantion is somewhat all ready getting there and eventually people just wont care it will just be like oh look another CGI movie big deal.... So it will all work out and I am sure Disney will be the first to go back to it (Or I hope)

[Teen Artist]

I actually think I prefer traditional animation, however advancements in CG animation could really be innovative to the animation process. I just hate when CG movies seem to be done because they're trendy. I've also noticed that CG movies tend to rely on comedy in a way that I haven't often seen traditional ones do. I can't explain it too well, but it's like a whole different genre. I hope traditional animation isn't dead.

I can see why Disney is going the CG route for their next batch of animated feature films. It takes less people (not less work, mind you!) which means it takes less money to produce so they won't suffer from a flop. But if they'd just do things right and make great movies, that reason would be obsolete. Brother Bear did pretty well, right? I don't expect Chicken Little to do the same.