Hand-Drawn Animation Dead at Disney

[Sotiris]

So basically it's more of merely your warped assumption rather than a solid fact.

Whether it was Lasseter's doing or not is subject to interpretation but whether the decision to change the style was a financial or a creative one is not. It's obvious it didn't have to do with how expensive it was to develop the painterly technique as you claimed; it had to do with how they wanted the film to look (although inevitably it had also to do with the perceived profitability of said look).

I'm all for stylized stuff in animation myself and trying out new techniques and ways, but if you're going to make a movie or tell a story and rely too much on style alone or focus too heavily on it, your story could end up falling apart or get weaken. Sleeping Beauty is a pretty good example of that (which is weird and ironic considering John praises that movie to high hell but whatever.) There's a reason that people sometimes say "Style vs Substance".

The question Lasseter has posed is not whether storytelling is more important than style but whether a style and the overall visual approach of a film can impede on the audience's immersion into the story. Whether there are story issues with Sleeping Beauty doesn't have to do with the visuals. I doubt that the visual approach taken stood in the way of the storytelling. I've always found the style vs substance mantra to be a false dichotomy. Style is part of substance. The aesthetic choices made whether it's the designs, the cinematography, the lighting, the medium etc, all inform and complement the narrative. Storytelling is not just plot and dialogue; it's all of these creative elements combined.

Especially in a canon Disney animation movie where its stories is probably one of the most defining and beloved aspect about Disney along with its iconic imagery. This studio isn't like say Gainax where they can take bold liberties in artist styles and direction which is usually what makes and defines a Gianax studio production.

That's a matter of preference. Personally, I miss the time when Disney experimented with more bold visual approaches and deviated (to an extent) from its house style with Hercules, The Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis, Lilo & Stitch etc. Others may prefer a more strict adherence to the Disney house style. That's not necessarily a negative; it's just a matter of taste.

They can make all those wacky ass visual styles and not have to worry too much on storytelling.

I disagree. I think no amount of innovative visuals can make up for quality storytelling and interesting characters (something that Lasseter believes as well). These shows were successful probably because audiences engaged with the story and characters as much with the visuals.

I don't think it's as crazy as Lasseter trying to enforce some secret bias agenda where he's out to get rid and prevent all hand drawn/and creative direction of ever reaching Disney again.

I never claimed there was a conspiracy or a secret agenda. It's obvious that Lasseter has specific views both as a filmmaker and as an executive and he supports them. I just don't agree with some of his views and decisions. It's as simple as that.

Is Ranieri still employed at Disney?

No, he was laid off during last April's lay-offs at the studio. There are a few 2D animators there but they have moved on to CG animation or other fields like direction or production design and don't actually animate in 2D anymore.

I just wish that theatrical classical style 2D, like the style Disney & Don Bluth made, could be affordable enough for indie filmmakers to make. If it were as easy & affordable as live action then I think we'd see a lot more 2D films being released in the independent circuit & a lot more variety of themes too.

Finding sponsors for any indie film is difficult but it's even more difficult when it comes to 2D animation since it's no longer considered a profitable medium by investors. There's a recent interview of Don Bluth explaining how hard it actually is to find funding for such projects.

Q: A lot of fans would love to see a Dragon's Lair Movie, we need to see some traditional animation back in theaters, what are your thoughts?

Don Bluth: I would love to see a Dragon’s Lair movie! I think, like you’ve indicated in some other questions, it all comes down to the funding. Right now, unfortunately I think what’s happening is that the big studios have a monopoly on distribution. The studios don’t believe that traditional animation will get an audience to the theater, and because of that they’ve gone in the direction of the CGI. With CGI, they believe that the young generation will go see it and so they’ve stayed with that medium because they feel that’s a safe investment.

Now I don’t know why, I only have a theory, but young boys feel that they can’t look at traditional animation. I think it has something to do with the teen years, growing up, coming of age, and not wanting to be classified as being a child anymore. Maybe Disney is responsible for this because for so long Disney has made traditional animation for the teenagers and little children. So what happens is the kids know these movies are for kids and when they start growing up they don’t want to go where the kids go; they want to go where the grownups go. They have to have something more sophisticated, and I think that’s why they actually pushed away from traditional animation.

Q: What is it that makes traditional animation special to you?

Don Bluth: Oh that’s easy. First of all as one who works in it, I think it’s more fun to draw the actual drawings and to find those emotions on the characters than it is to move a puppet around inside a computer. The challenge is greater; it’s harder to draw an emotion whereas in the computer you’ve got a puppet that you’ve built and rigged, and you have several expressions you can put on that puppet, but it somehow just doesn’t have the same magic in it as when you’re drawing.

The other thing is the color. I mean I really like the flat very bright vivid colors and the soft painted backgrounds of traditional animation. It has a look about it that’s just different from CG. I can compare that to watercolor and oil painting. They have a different feel when you see the subject that has been rendered on the canvas or the paper. I feel the same way about traditional animation; it’s a shame that no one has seen it as a marketing gold mine.

I think it will come back around. I do believe that somewhere someone is going to make one of those and it’s going to make a lot of money. Then all of the studios will say “Let’s go do that” because they will follow where the money is. But I don’t know when that is going to happen. As long as the theaters that show the films are monopolized by the big studios, I think we have a long wait.

Source: http://www.traditionalanimation.com/201 ... exclusive/


Gary Goldman, Bluth's partner, believes it's still possible for 2D animation to make a comeback.

Question: Traditional animation is in rough waters currently, You made the film with small budget & tight working schedule that saved/preserve Classical animation the past 30 years, what will it take for another film like Secret of NIMH to continue the art of hand-drawn animation for the next 30?

Gary Goldman: Well, I’m not sure it lasted a full 30 years. However, traditional animation did continue for another 20. But honestly, I believe that with the right story and a good budget, with top animation staff involved, another traditional, hand-drawn animated film could be a major success, re-introducing that art form and be the spark needed for the medium to get moving again. It’s about telling a good story, attracting and entertaining an audience.

Source: http://www.traditionalanimation.com/201 ... exclusive/

[Super Aurora]

So basically it's more of merely your warped assumption rather than a solid fact.

Whether it was Lasseter's doing or not is subject to interpretation but whether the decision to change the style was a financial or a creative one is not. It's obvious it didn't have to do with how expensive it was to develop the painterly technique as you claimed; it had to do with how they wanted the film to look (although inevitably it had also to do with the perceived profitability of said look).

The financial reason I stated was a guess I made as to a possible reason why they might scrapped given some of the factors I was taking in consideration such as the overblown budget etc. as oppose to everyone here going "LOL teh eVil Lasseter was behind it!! He wants it dead!!!". I don't have the tangled art book so I never read that and thus wouldn't know.

But how is it obvious that it didn't have to do with how expensive it was to develop the painterly technique? Last I check, computer animation by even general generic alone is extremely expensive. To go a route that is completely new concept without having some estimate idea of possibility of profit success, is pretty reasonable logic and common sense.

I'm all for stylized stuff in animation myself and trying out new techniques and ways, but if you're going to make a movie or tell a story and rely too much on style alone or focus too heavily on it, your story could end up falling apart or get weaken. Sleeping Beauty is a pretty good example of that (which is weird and ironic considering John praises that movie to high hell but whatever.) There's a reason that people sometimes say "Style vs Substance".

The question Lasseter has posed is not whether storytelling is more important than style but whether a style and the overall visual approach of a film can impede on the audience's immersion into the story.

To me that's understandable question and understandable that he would try ask himself or others that when over looking a film. Sure it doesn't always happen or always the case, but I can see his point in why he would think so. And to be honest I do think Sleeping Beauty is merely a stylized visual fest that is what people most often praise the film about, never the story.

Whether there are story issues with Sleeping Beauty doesn't have to do with the visuals. I doubt that the visual approach taken stood in the way of the storytelling.

In one of the documentaries in one of the Sleeping beauty dvd/bluray, they talk about how much time, effort and money alone on scene 8(the Aurora in the forest scene that they dubbed as) They talked about how much they got so immense into perfecting the animation and visuals to that particular scene to point where the budget was really hitting it high. Not to mention that the story and characters was pretty piss poor (except for possibly maleficent thanks to her VA) and suffered from lack of dedicating into creating a solid story and characters first.

I've always found the style vs substance mantra to be a false dichotomy. Style is part of substance. The aesthetic choices made whether it's the designs, the cinematography, the lighting, the medium etc, all inform and complement the narrative. Storytelling is not just plot and dialogue; it's all of these creative elements combined.

While that can be true and the style vs substance doesn't always applies to everything, the style vs substance does apply to many medium more often than you want to think. Again, Sleeping Beauty is perfect example of it (Bleach is another but that a whole another ballpark and discussion)- Great pleasing visuals, music and medieval style look, designs, but meh to piss poor characters, story and direction.

Especially in a canon Disney animation movie where its stories is probably one of the most defining and beloved aspect about Disney along with its iconic imagery. This studio isn't like say Gainax where they can take bold liberties in artist styles and direction which is usually what makes and defines a Gianax studio production.

That's a matter of preference. Personally, I miss the time when Disney experimented with more bold visual approaches and deviated (to an extent) from its house style with Hercules, The Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis, Lilo & Stitch etc. Others may prefer a more strict adherence to the Disney house style. That's not necessarily a negative; it's just a matter of taste.

Good point. especially with Lilo and Stitch and Atlantis.

They can make all those wacky ass visual styles and not have to worry too much on storytelling.

I disagree. I think no amount of innovative visuals can make up for quality storytelling and interesting characters (something that Lasseter believes as well). These shows were successful probably because audiences engaged with the story and characters as much with the visuals.

They no doubt do enjoy the stories or characters. And no doubt does usually most often than not in general sense, interesting characters and quality storytelling make the film in the end. I'm not denying that. But most often than not people got attracted or drawn in to those Gianax series to begin with due to the unique/bizzare style. This is most definitely true with Panty and Stocking.

I don't think it's as crazy as Lasseter trying to enforce some secret bias agenda where he's out to get rid and prevent all hand drawn/and creative direction of ever reaching Disney again.

I never claimed there was a conspiracy or a secret agenda. It's obvious that Lasseter has specific views both as a filmmaker and as an executive and he supports them. I just don't agree with some of his views and decisions. It's as simple as that.

It just that the way you posted them seems to come out like that.

[TsWade2]

There are other veteran 2D animators there but they have moved on to other fields like direction or production design and don't actually animate in 2D anymore.

Oh come on.

[Disney's Divinity]

Whether there are story issues with Sleeping Beauty doesn't have to do with the visuals. I doubt that the visual approach taken stood in the way of the storytelling.

I agree. Don't most animated films decide the story/music/dialogue first, and animate second? If the creators fail at fleshing out their story, that has absolutely nothing to do with the way the film is designed/animated. This is why not all of Disney's stylized films are boring like Sleeping Beauty.

[Warm Regards]

I must wonder, when did John Lasseter become particularly wary of "stylized" animation?

My theory: The low returns on Atlantis and Home on the Range, and the mediocre critical response to Chicken Little, had something to with it. Has he ever released a personal statement on any of those three films?

[TsWade2]

I'm still sad that Disney is too chicken to do a hand drawn animated feature. I'm still glad they're doing hand drawn shorts and I hope Get A Horse wins the Oscar, but it's just hard when you grew up with hand drawn animation and people are overly obsessed with CGI is kind of depressing. This maybe a bit ridiculous and I may not understand business, but I feel that John Lasseter betrayed the medium by doing CGI. I would love to see Disney try Painterly CGI and that Paperman technique, but still John Lasseter is a coward and I think he lost his mind.

[estefan]

Nothing in Lasseter's background suggests he dislikes hand-drawn animation and became involved in computer animation to put an end to it. I think he always saw computer animation as merely another means to animate a story, much like stop-motion animation. Quite a bit of evidence suggests he tried to keep the hand-drawn animators employed as long as the execs would let him.

I actually see Frozen's close-to-billion dollar gross giving the Disney Animation more freedom to experiment and do what they would like, thus leading to another hand-drawn film. A good example of this sort of thing happening in Hollywood is how Christopher Nolan ended up making Inception. He actually wrote the initial script about ten years before it got made, but at the time he was just a novice filmmaker at the time and knew no studio would give him the budget he required to bring his vision to the screen the way he wanted. That was part of the reason he decided to direct the Batman movies. After The Dark Knight made over a billion dollars, Warner Brothers pretty much said to him "Chris, thanks a lot for making us so much money. You can make any movie you want. You need $200 million? Sure, here you go and have fun." The massive success from Pirates of the Caribbean was also why Disney agreed to let Gore Verbinski and Jerry Bruckheimer make The Lone Ranger, even though conventional wisdom said that an expensive western was going to have trouble making its money back.

So I can easily imagine John Lasseter going up to Bob Iger's office after Frozen breaks the billion-dollar mark and saying "Well, I gave you a billion dollar movie. Can I please hire my friends back now and let them make another movie?" and I'll give you many more Frozens.

[TsWade2]

Nothing in Lasseter's background suggests he dislikes hand-drawn animation and became involved in computer animation to put an end to it. I think he always saw computer animation as merely another means to animate a story, much like stop-motion animation. Quite a bit of evidence suggests he tried to keep the hand-drawn animators employed as long as the execs would let him.

I actually see Frozen's close-to-billion dollar gross giving the Disney Animation more freedom to experiment and do what they would like, thus leading to another hand-drawn film. A good example of this sort of thing happening in Hollywood is how Christopher Nolan ended up making Inception. He actually wrote the initial script about ten years before it got made, but at the time he was just a novice filmmaker at the time and knew no studio would give him the budget he required to bring his vision to the screen the way he wanted. That was part of the reason he decided to direct the Batman movies. After The Dark Knight made over a billion dollars, Warner Brothers pretty much said to him "Chris, thanks a lot for making us so much money. You can make any movie you want. You need $200 million? Sure, here you go and have fun." The massive success from Pirates of the Caribbean was also why Disney agreed to let Gore Verbinski and Jerry Bruckheimer were allowed to make The Lone Ranger, even though conventional wisdom said that an expensive western was going to have trouble making its money back.

So I can easily imagine John Lasseter going up to Bob Iger's office after Frozen breaks the billion-dollar mark and saying "Well, I gave you a billion dollar movie. Can I please hire my friends back now and let them make another movie?" and I'll give you many more Frozens.

You're a better person than I am, estefan.

[Musical Master]

Nothing in Lasseter's background suggests he dislikes hand-drawn animation and became involved in computer animation to put an end to it. I think he always saw computer animation as merely another means to animate a story, much like stop-motion animation. Quite a bit of evidence suggests he tried to keep the hand-drawn animators employed as long as the execs would let him.

I actually see Frozen's close-to-billion dollar gross giving the Disney Animation more freedom to experiment and do what they would like, thus leading to another hand-drawn film. A good example of this sort of thing happening in Hollywood is how Christopher Nolan ended up making Inception. He actually wrote the initial script about ten years before it got made, but at the time he was just a novice filmmaker at the time and knew no studio would give him the budget he required to bring his vision to the screen the way he wanted. That was part of the reason he decided to direct the Batman movies. After The Dark Knight made over a billion dollars, Warner Brothers pretty much said to him "Chris, thanks a lot for making us so much money. You can make any movie you want. You need $200 million? Sure, here you go and have fun." The massive success from Pirates of the Caribbean was also why Disney agreed to let Gore Verbinski and Jerry Bruckheimer make The Lone Ranger, even though conventional wisdom said that an expensive western was going to have trouble making its money back.

So I can easily imagine John Lasseter going up to Bob Iger's office after Frozen breaks the billion-dollar mark and saying "Well, I gave you a billion dollar movie. Can I please hire my friends back now and let them make another movie?" and I'll give you many more Frozens.

Once again estefan, you rock!

[Sotiris]

Disney veterans Tom and Tony Bancroft talk about hand-drawn animation and the future of the medium at Disney.

Q: Is 2D animation dead?

Tom Bancroft: It’s a loaded question. It’s not dead but it’s in a coma. I think that’s the best answer. I really do see it coming back in a very small way. And here’s my answer to that. How will it come back? I think what we’re going to see is not the Disney, the DreamWorks, the Pixar, whatever big studio – especially Disney that was known for 2D – I don’t think they’re the ones that are going to bring it back. But the way it’s going to come back in a small way will be from a small independent company. A small group of people doing it, and probably in Europe unfortunately. I’d love to see it make a big comeback here in the U.S. but I think we’ll see a couple of smaller films that do really well, make a ton of money and it will be a nostalgic resurgence but it will be a mini one.

I don’t necessarily see Disney going back to it in any big way because the story you don’t hear that goes along with them not doing it anymore is that they don’t even have the equipment anymore. They’ve sold all of the animation desks, all of the software programs. They have very little equipment that’s 2D, they have even less 2D animators left. It’s literally a handful of 2D guys that are still there. So, bringing it back at Disney would be a momentous, a very expensive deal which I don’t see happening.

Tony Bancroft: Tony: It’s sad for us because Tom and I both grew up loving traditional animation. We got into animation because we love to draw first and foremost cartoony characters. We grew up with Disney and comic strips in particular like Charles Schulz and Peanuts and it was our fondness for drawing these fun cartoony things that led us into animation. Because we thought if we can do comic strips - we had several comic strips we had been working on in high school and junior college and such – that once we discovered we can make them move through the magic of animation, we were sold!

We fell in love with it and went along with the ride during the second Golden Age of Disney working on what we didn't know at the time would be recent classics like The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin and all those kind of films. And we just fell in love with it. And then to have it brought so abruptly and quickly to an end was crippling to a lot of us. There so much talent out there, so many animators that are just starving and eager and ready to go into something bigger but like Tom I agree that it’s probably going to be independent [films] that start it up again. It’s probably going to be in Europe where they don’t really see the lines so much of different mediums. To them animation is animation and it’s enjoyed by adults and kids. Here in the U.S., animation is CG only and it’s also mostly for kids (when you’re talking about full-blown story animation, not visual effects animation). So, it’s just how the U.S sees it, it’s how businesses see it and that’s how it has to come back: through proof of dollars and cents in the box office and somebody else will have to prove that.

Source: http://www.themousecastle.com/2014/02/t ... wards.html

[unprincess]

^thats pretty much how I think it may happen. It will bean indie, niche art faire thing...

as for Lasseter & 2d, I dont think he was aware of just how little power he'd have once he'd come under the control of the Disney suits...

So I can easily imagine John Lasseter going up to Bob Iger's office after Frozen breaks the billion-dollar mark and saying "Well, I gave you a billion dollar movie. Can I please hire my friends back now and let them make another movie?" and I'll give you many more Frozens.

yeah. Frozen's success makes me hopeful we'll at least get a hybrid film or two...

[TsWade2]

They’ve sold all of the animation desks, all of the software programs.

Oy vey!

[Warm Regards]

Perhaps I have become jaded after learning how corrupt U.S. politics have become, but I have fears that Disney will not use Frozen's success as indication to take more risks. Disney is a corporation, and most corporations have the goal of making as much money while spending as little (taxes or otherwise) as possible. People become greedy when wealth is presented to them. Making risky investments, which by this point is what many see hand-drawn animation to be, is counter-intuitive to the bottom line.

But I do believe a few at Disney will vouch for more hand-drawn, including John Lasseter. I surely hope so. I just don't know if they will be heard.

In semi-related news, two Pixar artists are making a short that seems to be utilizing the hand-drawn/ CGI hybrid technique. (At least, this video shows some CG blocking with the drawings added after.)

Source: http://www.rotoscopers.com/2014/02/07/b ... -released/

Two Pixar visual development artists, Robert Kondo and Dice Tsutsumi, have come together to release their own animated short titled The Dam Keeper. The first trailer and a clip of the short were just released in time for the short’s premiere at the Berlin Film Festival later this month.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTd3J1GFC5M[/youtube]

[TsWade2]

It's not fair for Disney for not doing another hand drawn animated feature. Those executives are a bunch of greedy hand drawn hating jerks. But I hope estefan is right that Frozen will give Disney more boost of creativity and that includes hand drawn. Of course, I don't mind if they use painterly cgi like Moana is doing or using that Paperman Hybrid Technique. But I like Disney to do another hand drawn animated feature films and hopefully hired back those veteran animators. I guess right now, they're doing hand drawn shorts.

[Super Aurora]

Disney veterans Tom and Tony Bancroft talk about hand-drawn animation and the future of the medium at Disney.

Q: Is 2D animation dead?

Tom Bancroft: It’s a loaded question. It’s not dead but it’s in a coma. I think that’s the best answer. I really do see it coming back in a very small way. And here’s my answer to that. How will it come back? I think what we’re going to see is not the Disney, the DreamWorks, the Pixar, whatever big studio – especially Disney that was known for 2D – I don’t think they’re the ones that are going to bring it back. But the way it’s going to come back in a small way will be from a small independent company. A small group of people doing it, and probably in Europe unfortunately. I’d love to see it make a big comeback here in the U.S. but I think we’ll see a couple of smaller films that do really well, make a ton of money and it will be a nostalgic resurgence but it will be a mini one.

I don’t necessarily see Disney going back to it in any big way because the story you don’t hear that goes along with them not doing it anymore is that they don’t even have the equipment anymore. They’ve sold all of the animation desks, all of the software programs. They have very little equipment that’s 2D, they have even less 2D animators left. It’s literally a handful of 2D guys that are still there. So, bringing it back at Disney would be a momentous, a very expensive deal which I don’t see happening.

Tony Bancroft: Tony: It’s sad for us because Tom and I both grew up loving traditional animation. We got into animation because we love to draw first and foremost cartoony characters. We grew up with Disney and comic strips in particular like Charles Schulz and Peanuts and it was our fondness for drawing these fun cartoony things that led us into animation. Because we thought if we can do comic strips - we had several comic strips we had been working on in high school and junior college and such – that once we discovered we can make them move through the magic of animation, we were sold!

We fell in love with it and went along with the ride during the second Golden Age of Disney working on what we didn't know at the time would be recent classics like The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin and all those kind of films. And we just fell in love with it. And then to have it brought so abruptly and quickly to an end was crippling to a lot of us. There so much talent out there, so many animators that are just starving and eager and ready to go into something bigger but like Tom I agree that it’s probably going to be independent [films] that start it up again. It’s probably going to be in Europe where they don’t really see the lines so much of different mediums. To them animation is animation and it’s enjoyed by adults and kids. Here in the U.S., animation is CG only and it’s also mostly for kids (when you’re talking about full-blown story animation, not visual effects animation). So, it’s just how the U.S sees it, it’s how businesses see it and that’s how it has to come back: through proof of dollars and cents in the box office and somebody else will have to prove that.

Source: http://www.themousecastle.com/2014/02/t ... wards.html

They pretty much got that correct.

[Sotiris]

Disney legend Floyd Norman talks about 2D animation.

Q: Tell me a little bit about what you think the good and bad elements are of the changes in technology and animation.

Floyd Norman: Well you know that has been a debate that has been going on now for some time. I think it popped up again this morning. A bunch of animation fans — we call them animation geeks — started an argument over a statement made by our creative officer John Lasseter and it had to do with hand drawn animation and digital animation. This debate has been going on for the past few years and it is not going to stop any time soon. Pixar really pushed animation in a whole new direction. Technology changed animation and I think it changed it forever. We don’t make films the same way we did in years past and that is why I posted that photo on my blog of the drawing board and the pencil, and the paper. This is like today ancient history. We don’t make films like that anymore. This is not to denigrate that process because that process gave us Disney classics but now we have moved on to a new way of making films. Technology has moved in and some might say encroached on the process but I think Walt Disney would have welcomed it because Walt Disney was always pushing towards the future and not looking back at the past. You just move forward, that is all you can do and take advantage of the great new tools that the technology has given us.

Source: http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/mov ... -book.html

Q: And you've seen the changes in films through the years - with home video, computer animation. What innovation has excited you the most over the years?

Floyd Norman: I don't know, I think every change excited me. When we moved from hand-inking to Xerox...it's kind of funny, at that point in the early 1960's, it was a major technological shift in the way films were being made. And when we went from hand painting to painting on the computer, another technological shift. So these things keep happening. So when animation moved off the drawing board, and onto the computer screen with digital animation, another major shift. And so, I don't see this stopping anytime soon, and who knows what the next major technological shift may be. I think this is the process that is continually evolving, continually becoming more efficient, and who knows what the future might hold? So, I'm very excited. I think I work in a very exciting industry, a fantastic industry filled with enormous artistic opportunities, and just look forward to the future, just as Walt would have if he'd still been with us.

Source: http://www.mousesteps.com/denises-corne ... alt-disney

He’s been able to immerse himself in the world of both hand drawn and digital animation though Norman has a soft spot for the former. “These are drawings that come to life,” he explained. “When the artist has that pencil in their hand, they can’t help but put some part of themselves on the screen. It’s a very personal work of art.”

However, Norman is not disillusioned by the advent of computer-generated animation. He sees it as another tool in the film process. “The essence is still story,” he said. “The core message has never changed. The technology has changed.”

Source: http://voxxi.com/2014/02/13/floyd-norma ... ngle-book/

Q: Do you think animating a 3D film is more fun than a 2D film or the other way around? What are your thoughts?

Floyd Norman: While I have a preference for hand drawn animation, the new medium of CGI also has its merits. Either medium can be just as much fun as the other.

Q: 2D animation vs. 3D animation what are your thoughts on this endless battle?

Floyd Norman: In 1997, I moved north to Pixar Animation Studios because I saw a future in the new medium of digital animation and the marvelous new things it could do. I’ve never believed it should be an "Either - Or" situation. Producers should choose the technique that works best for the story they’re telling.

Source: https://www.animdesk.com/floyd-norman

Q: Do you miss the handmade process, or do you perceive the new technology to be a positive step forward for animation?

Floyd Norman: Well I think with change there is always that trade off - that give and take. In many ways the tools of today are amazing, and we can do things that could not have even been imagined twenty years ago. On the other hand we have lost that human touch and personal sensibility that the artist brings to a motion picture. So even though I welcome and embrace the new technology, in some ways I have misgivings about it. It's just as in life things change and you have to recognise that things will be continually changing. I have always tried to make those adjustments, and whilst I love the old fashioned handmade product, what we do today with digital technology is truly amazing. In the end I have just had to learn to live with both.

Source: http://www.thefancarpet.com/q-and-a/flo ... _interview

Q: You've worked with several formats, having been involved with Pixar and Disney in the early stages of computer animation. Where do you think we are at with animation at the moment? Do you think there is an element of imagination that is lost in the limitlessness of it?

Floyd Norman: That's really an interesting thought because one of things Walt was always complaining about – and I think that's one of the reasons Walt continually pushed for innovation at his studio – was that he always wanted to make things better, he wanted to make new things possible. I think Walt would have been quite impressed with the new digital technology because he would have a brand new tool that he could use in amazing ways. So while on one hand we've lost something as we move forward, I do recognise that things will always be changing. Animation changed from the 1930s to the 40s, on up through the 50s and 60s; there has always been new technologies being created, enabling us to make a better product.

Source: http://www.theskinny.co.uk/film/intervi ... oyd_norman

I honestly don’t expect hand drawn traditional animation to make any kind of meaningful comeback in the near future. I’m not being negative - just simply accepting reality. The “3D genie is out of the bottle” and it's not going back in anytime soon. Digital movie makers can now deliver a feature length animated film in months. The same hand drawn footage would more than likely take years. Once you compare the cost, there’s no contest. And, in big time Hollywood movie making the dollar rules. Finally, this is not an appeal to dump the new technology because it has already demonstrated how successful it can be. However, I’d like to appeal to our young animation film makers to use the new technology and not be driven by it. Ultimately, the electronic marvel on your desktop will not solve your creative problems. As always, it will be your imagination and ingenuity that will create the amazing product we call movie magic.

Source: http://floydnormancom.sqsp.com/blog/201 ... al-trouble

While speaking of the things we do, the subject of traditional hand drawn animation came up again. We spoke of the talented animators who have been lecturing in an attempt to bring a hand drawn sensibility to the CGI animated motion pictures now in production. We spoke of the simple charm of a hand drawn sketch and the wonder of seeing a drawing come to life. We believe that audiences still marvel at the magic of a moving sketch even though producers would have us believe that nothing less than a photo real digital animated movie can make money today. And, don’t even get me started on the old canard that hand drawn motion pictures are inherently more expensive than CGI with its massive infrastructure and the expense that comes with it. Were I ever to be blessed with sufficient funds to make an animated film I could have a studio up and running in a matter of weeks. The facility would be as simple as a rented warehouse with rows of drawing tables loaded with pencils and paper. Start up costs would be next to nothing and what little computer equipment needed would be used for post production which is mainly a mechanical process anyway. Plus, I doubt dedicated staffers would be difficult to find. Eager young students ready to bring back a lost art along with a host of marginalized veteran animation professionals who have been waiting on the sidelines for something great to come along.

While it’s true I’ve often been accused of bashing CGI filmmaking the charge is hardly legitimate. I’ve always been on the cutting edge of technology and I’ve owned more computers and drawing tablets than most people would ever have a need for. However, I will confess that I’m growing weary of digital films even though the images sent to the screen are often dazzling. However, this animation veteran is getting a little tired of being dazzled and would like the joy of seeing a simple drawing on screen again. That’s correct kids. A simple drawing sketched to brilliant life by an artist we call, an animator. Guys who create magic using nothing less than pencil and paper and carry on in the tradition of Art Babbitt, Milt Kahl and Freddy Moore. That’s what I call animation, my friends and that’s what I sorely miss today.

Source: http://floydnormancom.squarespace.com/b ... ple-sketch

The magic began for me many years ago as a young middle school art student when I placed an inked and painted sheet of acetate over a color background. For some reason, the two dimensional cel and the flat background suddenly sprang to life. The medium appeared to take on dimension and the frame appeared to be a window to a world I could actually enter. While present day CGI animation can deliver photo real, high definition images on screen without breaking a sweat, I continue to be amazed at the amazing reality of hand drawn and painted animation art. Hardly as impressive as today’s jaw dropping technology, these simple moving sketches and colored scenics appear to resonate with their own special magic. It’s a reality far beyond what a computer can replicate. It’s the imagination of the artist. It’s an art form that seems to reach out and touch us.

Source: https://floydnormancom.squarespace.com/ ... nd-forever

I confess I miss the old days when animation was cartoon making. When the zany animated images on screen were simple sketches. Sure, we didn’t have all the golly, gee whiz visual effects of CGI. And, we lacked the ability to put anything awesome on screen except simple cartoony drawings. Yet, there’s something special about the simplicity of cartoon drawings that can never be replaced by the mundane, mechanical tools we use today.

Source: http://floydnormancom.squarespace.com/b ... mple-stuff

Disney’s artists were limited by what they could create on paper and restricted by the five levels of the animation camera. Yet, that very limitation enabled them to become incredibly creative and they were continually pushed to come up with unexpected and amazing solutions to problems simply because they had to. They were limited by the technology of the day. Yet, that very limitation enabled them to become enormously creative. I’m not knocking the amazing technical achievements we’ve made over the last two decades in the cartoon business. However, I am concerned we’ve become too focused on the wrong things. Technology can free us from tasks that are tedious and redundant. Images such as props, vehicles and effects are child’s play for the computer. Although, I think I’d still give a nod to analog special effects animator Josh Meader’s hand drawn pixie dust over that sparkly computer crap. The Disney Masters created classics even though they were limited by the tools of their day. The limitation was certainly acknowledged and they worked within those parameters. Today, the number of camera levels is virtually unlimited and the computer’s ability to replicate images knows no bounds. However I’m inclined to doubt that technological freedom will guarantee any animated classics.

Source: http://floydnormancom.squarespace.com/b ... he-cgi-era

There's still something about a rough animation drawing that resonates with me. I love rough sketches and I never seem to get enough of them. Back then animation was all about drawing. Not so much today, I'm afraid. The Disney Company seems to have left drawing behind in favor of other stuff. Today, there’s a new generation of animators out there and trust me, they’re darn good. However, stellar as their animation might be, I wonder how cool their scenes would be had they been created with pencil and paper? I’m speaking as an old traditional animator who began his scenes with a empty exposure sheet and a blank sheet of paper. Trust me, it’s a rather daunting task when you start with nothing but your own drawing skill and creative imagination. Being an animator - or attempting to become one was truly a trial by fire. Why, you ask? It’s because there was no place to hide. There was absolutely nothing on your sheet of paper until you touched it with your pencil.

I’m not saying animating today is a breeze because it’s clearly not. Each new scene is a challenge and the animator, whoever he or she may be, is expected to give an effective performance. Bringing a character to life on the big screen or small is what gives animation its special charm and it’s no wonder our marvelous medium still attracts young men and women today. However difficult their task may be, I doubt they’ll ever experience that special twinge we felt in the pit of our stomach when picking up our first scene. The moment when you placed a blank sheet of paper on your animation pegs and stared at that vast, empty, white space. There was no rig, no virtual character, no nothing at all except you and your talent. You can imagine how we felt that day in B-wing as we stared slack-jawed at those amazing drawings. We all returned to our office that day determined to work on our drawing skills. After all, if you couldn't draw - how the heck could you ever hope to be an animator? We lost Freddy Moore back in the fifties, yet his amazing work is still being discussed today. I can’t help but wonder how many CGI scenes we’ll be talking about fifty years from now?

I'm often accused of being biased against CGI animators over their hand drawn counterparts. In truth, hand drawn animation requires a totally different skill set. After six months to a year of extensive training, a CGI animator is up and ready to go. Give that off shore animator two years and he can compete with anybody in Hollywood. Such was never the case with traditional hand drawn animation.

It took me at least eight to ten years before I could dare to compete with the talented veterans at Disney. That's how difficult it was to become an animator. I considered Disney's animators the best in the world and they set the standard for everybody else. Today, outsourcing is a real concern because the economics are bound to catch up with American animators sooner than later.

Source: http://floydnormancom.squarespace.com/b ... n-was-real

Yet, the future of the animation artist is not totally bleak. Independent film makers continue to keep the medium of traditional hand drawn animation alive. Of course, their efforts often fail to garner the impressive box office numbers of their 3D counterpart. It may take a while but the current digital fascination will wane. Much like George Pal's 3D-ish “PuppetToons” back in the forties, audiences will eventually grow weary of the artificial plastic puppet show and want a good deal more. Impressive as todays digital tools may appear, we’re still taking baby steps. When the technology truly matures - when it has the functionality of a pencil or a paintbrush - the real artists will be welcomed back.

Source: http://floydnormancom.squarespace.com/b ... mous-again

Q: What is it though that will keep 2D animation alive?

Floyd Norman: I think it’s the public that keeps anything alive. The public, that’s who we have to please, anyway. The public will, I think in time, demand that 2D animation returns because they’ll miss it. Now, it’s true we’ve gone through a period where it seems that the default medium for all animated films seems to be CGI. And there are reasons for that. There are a lot of advantages that CGI brings to the table. Yet 2D animation, traditional, hand-drawn animation has a lot in its favour as well. I had to the opportunity to speak to Tomm Moore, the wonderful Irish filmmaker who did Song of the Sea, a beautifully animated film that I saw recently. And there are other films that are being done. Again, they’re being made mainly by independents because the mainstream studios, at this point anyway, do not see that traditional, hand-drawn animation is working for them or maybe simply does not fit their business plan.

Now again, CGI animation offers a lot of advantages when it comes to making last-minute changes. If you had to make changes in a sequence with hand-drawn it could take you months. If you wanted to make those same changes with a CGI film you could do it in a matter of weeks or maybe even days. Now that is a tremendous advantage to the filmmaker. However, having said that, hand-drawn animation brings a different kind of design sensibility to the film and I think a different emotional experience. Now, that doesn’t mean that CGI can’t deliver the goods when it comes to emotion. But I feel when I sit down and I watch an old-fashioned Disney film like Dumbo compared to a beautiful film like Toy Story 3 or the latest Pixar offerings, there’s just a different feeling I get when watching those films. It’s not a matter of one being better than the other. I think each is terrific in its own way and that’s why I don’t want to see any medium die. I think there’s room for CGI, I think there’s room for hand-drawn, I think there’s room for stop-motion. I think the tools really don’t matter. It’s the story; it’s what you’re trying to give to the audience. To me, that’s always what mattered. What the audience feels; how that story resonates with the audience. Whether or not the audience loves those character be they hand-drawn, be they CGI, it doesn’t really matter. But I think there’s room for all and that’s why I feel that one day we’re going to see a lot of hand-drawn films up on the big screen again. Because audiences will demand it.

Q: I think what you’re going to see, as you mentioned, an independent producer of hand-drawn animation is going to do that film that will break through.

Floyd Norman: Yeah. It may not necessarily be an all-hand-drawn film, it might be a hybrid. Keep in mind that these are all tools that the artist can use. So, we might have a film that is somewhat CGI and maybe part hand-drawn, little bit of both, you know. Who knows? I think there’s an opportunity here for fusion because there’s no reason why these mediums have to be kept separate. Who says that a film has to be all hand-drawn? Who says that a film has to be all CGI? Maybe a film can be both. I think the artist might be able to bring us a film of the likes of which we’ve never seen before.

Q: And if you look at some of the recent short films that Disney has done like Paperman and Feast, you see that exact type of artistic approach going on.

Floyd Norman: That’s exactly it. The artists are pushing the envelope and trying new things and so, who knows what the future might bring.

Source: http://www.themousecastle.com/2015/03/m ... rbolt.html

Q: We’re back at that situation now where people have decided 2D films are too expensive to make.

Floyd Norman: Not exactly. I think what’s happened now is a totally different ball game. It’s not about the economics of hand-drawn animation; it’s a perception that the public doesn’t want to see hand-drawn animation, that the public actually prefers digital animation. Although, I think that’s a misconception because I think a good hand-drawn film, a great Disney film that was done in traditional animation could attract a large audience.

Q: They tried it with Princess and the Frog and it was a decent movie but it was not that Disney quality that we’ve come to expect.

Floyd Norman: Yeah. I don’t think we should blame the film’s failure at box office on the medium, you know? Some films work and some films don’t but it’s not because it’s hand-drawn or digital; it’s because whether the film works or not, whether the film resonates with the audience. And so, it’s not the medium, you know? It’s the story, it’s the characters, it’s that Disney magic that makes a film work.

Source: http://endcredits.podbean.com/e/floyd2/

As I've often said, had the Disney Company not shut down traditional hand drawn animation, Disney’s hallowed “Nine Old Men” would have had some serious competition. Think I’m joking? I can honestly say that the new generation of animation professionals at the Disney Company was pushing animation to a whole new level. Working from the foundation established by the Disney Masters, these new, young animators were just hitting their stride. Given a few more years, they could have eventually achieved the level of Disney’s Masters. A few more years - they might have even surpassed it. We’ll never know that, of course. The company began by marginalizing hand drawn animation before completely destroying it. Naturally, they knew what they were doing. Some might say that Disney traditional hand drawn animation simply died on its own. Perhaps that’s true. However, I’m inclined to think that it wasn’t “Brutus” acting alone. There were many others wielding daggers when it was time for the “assasination.”

Source: http://floydnormancom.squarespace.com/b ... robin-hood

Q: Now Disney is doing everything in 3D and digital. What are your thoughts on this whole abandonment of hand-drawn animation?

Floyd Norman: It’s unfortunate. I feel that with the incredible instrument that digital filmmaking happens to be… The technologists have given us amazing tools to work with and I’m thankful for those tools because they enable us as storytellers to do marvelous things. Having said that, there’s still a bit of regret in seeing traditional hand-drawn animation marginalized, cast to the side because I still think that’s a very vital medium and I don’t want to see it die. I don’t want to see it die out. I think there are so many artists who want to draw the characters, who want to create characters with a pencil and paper. I don’t want to see that go away. So, that is my one regret about moving into this new digital age. On one hand, it’s given us marvelous tools and enabled us to do things we could only have imagined years ago… It’s still painful to see hand-drawn animation, that original art form that was so vital for so many years… I don’t want to see that die. I don’t want to see that go away. And I’m hoping – maybe hoping against hope – that somebody will realize how important hand-drawn animation is and will welcome it back because people love both types. People have not gotten tired of seeing the traditional Disney films, the classic films, from years past. Those films are just as exciting today as they were fifty years ago. But for the present time it seems that 3D filmmaking has usurped… It is the default medium present-day. I can understand that. They are economic reasons as well. But I’m still hoping that one day hand-drawn animation will be welcomed back.

Source: http://www.disneyavenue.com/2015/04/dis ... floyd.html

Q: Do you think we’re ever going to see another hand-drawn feature from Disney?

Floyd Norman: I would like to think so. I would like to think so because I don’t think the wonderful medium of hand-drawn animation is going to go away. There are still so many people who love it. There are still so many people who love drawings. I do know that the business model changed in the 90s when there was a perception that the only animated films that could make money were CG animated films. I think we’re going to eventually grow out of that. Anytime anything new comes along it sort of becomes the de facto standard. Everybody makes CG films today because the perception is you can’t succeed unless your film is CGI. But I think, like all things, that’s going to change in time and we are going to see hand-drawn animation return both at other studios outside and here at Disney, inside. So, no, I don’t feel hand-drawn animation is dead by any means. There are still too many people who love the medium. There are still too many people who want to participate in this marvelous medium of hand-drawn. I don’t think we should be battling over tools and techniques because really that’s all they are. They are simply different tools and different techniques. Storytelling is basically what we are still all about. How we tell that story and what tools we use to tell it are just choices and in time we’ll be making more choices in the future.

Source: http://geekdad.com/2015/09/gbb-podcast-26-floyd-norman/

I’ve often expressed my displeasure at the annoying sameness of CGI films. It’s not that I’ve anything against our amazing new world of digital filmmaking because the technology has allowed us to do things we could not even have imagined some years ago. However, I find myself becoming weary of the sameness of animated motion pictures. This became apparent recently while watching the evolution of a motion picture whose initial production design totally blew me away. The concept art was brilliant and I couldn’t wait to see this innovative motion picture move into production. I should have known better. Once the film moved into production it looked pretty much like every other CG film I had seen. What’s wrong, I wondered? Animation was once such a creative medium offering every opportunity for personal expression. Why do all the movies suffer from this awful sameness? It’s as though they’re all being made by the same computer. What the heck! Maybe they are!

Enough of my animated rant. I know things will change eventually and artists will again gain control over our remarkable filmmaking tools. I’m eager to see and feel the hand of the artist in the making of animated motion pictures. I’m not saying todays films haven’t been good because most have been remarkable and audiences have responded by supporting the best of today’s efforts. Personally, I find too many of them annoyingly synthetic and often lacking in the visceral, emotional connection with the artist. I know I’m an aging filmmaker from another animation era, but I confess I miss the hand drawn connection this amazing medium once gave us. When I recently viewed the spirited hand drawn animation by a talented young animator named Joanna Davidovich I was suddenly given hope that the medium may not be lost after all.

Source: http://floydnormancom.squarespace.com/b ... igital-age

I recently sat in a meeting with a client as we pondered how two projects might be produced. Would we be taking a traditional approach to the animation or going CGI. My heart sank as I opted for a digital production model. Would I have rather gone with traditional hand drawn animation? You bet I would. I would have prefererred hand drawn for a number of reasons. However, animation is a business, not a hobby. Decisions have to be made for sound business reasons not for ones personal preference. I knew that going the traditional hand drawn route would have been difficult because studio production pipelines today are almost totally CGI. To suddenly introduce hand drawn animation would be artistically brilliant, yet financially foolhardy. So, I passed on the medium I profoundly love and elected to go with the medium that is today’s default production model. To all you traditional animation diehards out there I say, God bless. Thanks for keeping the medium and the dream alive. Hopefully, one day I can join you and we can continue fighting the good fight.

Source: http://floydnormancom.squarespace.com/b ... good-fight

So, what are Norman’s feelings about how cel animation has largely given way to CGI? “Another subject worthy of a whole book. I come from the tradition of hand-drawn animation, and I still consider the classic Disney animated films to be Disney’s best. While I embrace CGI as a new asset in the filmmakers’ toolbox, I do not consider it the next step in the evolution of animation. For me, there is nothing old or obsolete about hand-drawn, traditional animation, and I eagerly look forward to the day when we can see hand-drawn art back on the big screen. CGI is great in many ways. However, the computer and technological innovation can never replace the gifted hand of the artist.”

Source: http://lwlies.com/articles/the-jungle-b ... yd-norman/

Naturally, the subject of traditional hand drawn animation became the center of our conversation. We spoke of the talented animators who have been lecturing in an attempt to bring a hand drawn sensibility to the CGI animated motion pictures now in production. We spoke of the simple charm of a hand drawn sketch and the wonder of seeing a drawing come to life. We believe that audiences still marvel at the magic of a moving sketch even though producers would have us believe that nothing less than a photo real digital animated movie can make money today. And, don’t even get me started on the old canard that hand drawn motion pictures are inherently more expensive than CGI with its massive infrastructure and the considerable expense that comes with it. Were I ever to be blessed with sufficient funds to make an animated film I could have a studio up and running in a matter of weeks. The facility would be as simple as a rented warehouse with rows of drawing tables loaded with pencils and paper. Start up costs would be next to nothing and what little computer equipment needed would be used for post production which is mainly a mechanical process anyway. Plus, I doubt dedicated staffers would be difficult to find. Eager young students ready to bring back a lost art along with a host of marginalized veteran animation professionals who have been waiting on the sidelines for something great to come along.

While it’s true I’ve often been accused of bashing CGI filmmaking, the charge is hardly legitimate. I’ve always been on the cutting edge of technology and I’ve owned more computers and drawing tablets than most people would ever have a need for. However, I will confess that I’m growing weary of digital films even though the images sent to the screen are often impressive. However, this animation veteran is getting a little tired of being dazzled and would like the joy of seeing a simple drawing spring to animated life on the big screen again. A simple, inspired drawing sketched into brilliant life by a unique artist we once called, an animator. Gifted women and men who create magic using nothing less than pencil and paper. They would carry on in the tradition of Art Babbitt, Milt Kahl and Freddy Moore. And, the new generation of masters including, Glen Keane, Andreas Deja and Eric Goldberg.

Source: http://floydnormancom.squarespace.com/b ... rawn-lunch

[SWillie!]

Wow, I'm pleasantly surprised by such a positive comment coming from Floyd, especially on this matter. I think he's spot on.

[Disney's Divinity]

I think Floyd Norman has been spot on about most things he's said, so not surprised.

I think (if Walt Disney was immortal), that he would have already moved on to the Paperman technique for animated feature films by now, considering he would've already jumped into 3D before Pixar ever came around--or at least the early design style of Tangled, which was just being talked about in this topic, or something even better. On the other hand, I don't think he would have dropped 2D like a hot potato either, but it would definitely be on the back burner, which is why the company right now is not like Walt Disney the man at all. Even though Disney has finally accepted 3D as the new thing, I'm not sure if they'd "advanced" on anything that hasn't already been done by Pixar or Dreamworks. They're just circling the drain to get as much money producing the same thing repeatedly, like most companies apparently.

[TsWade2]

But, will they use hand drawn animation in their digital tablets?

[Sotiris]

Former Disney animator Sandro Cleuzo talks about 2D animation.

Q: 2D Animation vs. 3D animation what are your thoughts on this endless battle?

Sandro Cleuzo: It's ridiculous, it should never be a battle or competition. It should be both, there should be room for both, that's all. There's no reason to let hand drawn animated films disappear, it's a great and beautiful art form and you can tell any kind of story with it. If you can create something fresh and interesting with great story and characters I have no doubt that people will go see it.

Source: https://www.animdesk.com/sandro-cleuzo- ... r-animator

Q: Do you feel like 2D animators coming up today can have a sustainable career in animation?

Sandro Cleuzo: That's a difficult question. I know many people want to do 2D animation but there's not much work in hand-drawn animation, to be honest. There are new animators that I know who are amazing. When I was working on Me and My Shadow, they hired these young French animators. Their animation was amazing; better than many people who had been doing this for years. Brilliant animation. It's too bad there's no studio that can absorb these guys. They wanted to stay but couldn't so they had to return back to Europe. There are some amazing people out there who can do hand-drawn animation but there are only a few movies here and there, especially in Europe. I have friends who are French and work in the industry there, who told me it's not easy. They make a movie and when it's done everybody's laid off and they have to find another job. It's very difficult. It's not like that in CG animation. There are more CG movies done so they can get a job more easily than in hand-drawn animation. For hand-drawn animation, there's not much going on.

Source: http://www.toontalkspodcast.com/?p=538