Hand-Drawn Animation Dead at Disney

[TsWade2]

Agreed. Especially Bob Iger.

I'm really tired and I'm going to bed, so I'm just going to leave this. Really sorry to be rude, but...

I'm just kidding. Relax.

[Warm Regards]

In regards to Peanuts, I've said this before, but I think that movie's eventual success will lead to more openness to trying different types of computer animation, specifically ones that seek to emulate hand-drawn animation. And I can see a director making the argument that using paper and Cintiq is actually cheaper to emulate Peanuts' look than computer. What executive wouldn't want to approve a cheaper way of emulating a hit movie's success?

For me, that translates into a jobs issue.

A lot of talented artists and aspiring artists can't find work because too many studios have found a be-all, end-all in computer art.

To add on to that, the inter webs is not yet a viable place for animation outside established franchises like Turbo FAST or that new Sailor Moon show that will stream online. So indie artists who DO want hand drawn either have to sell their houses to make the story, or suck it up and work for the big leagues.

(Slightly off tangent: I remember seeing an interview where an actor from House of Cards said Netflix was willing to try out the show because they didn't mind risks. That's the mentality animation studios seem to lack these days.)

[ce1ticmoon]

I think Frozen is great, but I wouldn't call it revolutionary. It still follows the template set by the 90s Disney musicals, even with its trope twisting. I think Disney needs to prove hand-drawn animation doesn't necessarily have to be relegated to musicals and fairy tales, which I think is what Catmull is getting at. It needs to be something special and unique to use hand-drawn animation, otherwise the general audience will think the medium can only tell that one type of story. Something akin to a Lilo & Stitch, which doesn't follow what we expect from Disney and hand-drawn animation.

I agree that Frozen is not revolutionary. Sure, it "twists" some Disney fairy tale tropes, but not in any way that hadn't already been done by Shrek or Enchanted. The only difference is that Frozen isn't a parody or satire of the genre. Did it try something different? Sure. Was it ambitious? Yes. Was it revolutionary? I would say no. I have some reservations, but I really love Frozen as much as the next guy. Still, I think some people give it way too much credit.

But getting back to the actual topic at hand, if that is what Catmull is getting at, I would have to say that I can't buy that at all. He would really have to think the audience is completely stupid. At this point, I don't really care if Disney does hand-drawn animation or not. I mean, I would be ecstatic if they do decide to go back to it, or if they decide to employ the Paperman technique to a feature film. But I'm not going to get my hopes up. If they keep making good CGI features, I'll be content. I'll get my hand-drawn fix elsewhere. (There's still a lot of it being made all over the world.)

[Sotiris]

Disney animator Andrew Chesworth talks about 2D vs 3D animation. I concur with his views on hand-drawn animation.

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

Andrew Chesworth: It's funny that people see it as a battle. That's a bit dramatic for my taste. They are just two different things, and they both are better at certain types of things.

2D is more personal, more direct, and I would dare say (when it's done by really skilled craftsmen) more "artful". It requires a higher level of sensitive hand-craftsmanship, and fewer people can do it at the level that is necessary to make a truly breathtaking piece of animated art like “Pinocchio”, “101 Dalmatians" or “Sleeping Beauty”.

CG is slicker, more detailed, more modern, but much less personal. It takes a hell of a lot more work to make CG feel even as remotely as organic as hand-drawn animation. CG is a lot more conducive to having visual consistency in a mass-produced feature film, and you can have grander set pieces because of the technology. Directors can also stage it more like a live action film because it's easier to adjust elements that have already been created. In that way, CG makes more sense as a business model to a large corporation. You can control more things, and businesses thrive on their ability to control their elements. This is probably a blessing and a curse to CG filmmakers.

Source: https://www.animdesk.com/we-interviewed ... on-studios

[Disney's Divinity]

If Frozen wouldn't be considered a good enough story to "revive" hand-drawn animation, then you must admit that argument is just drawing at straws. They have no interest in reviving hand-drawn animation, and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the story suits the medium or the story just isn't "good enough," because we've already had several stories that both suited the medium and were good enough. It's so exhausting to see these same excuses paraded around as more than what they are.

And, no, I don't see the value in 3D trying to "emulate" hand-drawn or how that's supposed to keep hand-drawn animation "alive." This entire thread just makes me roll my eyes 24/7.

[disneyprincess11]

And like I said, if Frozen was 2D, you can bet that hand-drawn animation would be back at Disney because either way, it would make a billion dollars. What poor timing!

[Fflewduur]

If the studio’s not interested in pursuing 2d animation at this time—well, it’s sad, but there’s nothing to be done about it. Fans lost their last big opportunity to have any real influence by staying away from TPatF in droves. Like it or not, show business is show *business*. Box office > petitions.

The world changes. If you study engineering or architecture or stage design, you’d better know CADD—there’s not much demand for folks who draft by hand. Hardly anyone knows how to do mast craftsman-quality work in a neon shop anymore, so decades and decades worth of specialized tools and techniques are falling down the memory hole.

It’s unfortunate the part the Disney company has played in the dissolution of enthusiasm for 2D work. They didn’t do traditional animation any favors with that string of features in that mid-90s-to-mid-2000s decade. Not did they help matters much by pushing out to theaters a load of projects that were better suited for TV or direct-to-home-media release—that behavior devalued 2D in audience perception and evaluation as CG took off. And with Dreamworks veritably flooding the market with releases…the sad fact that is that traditional work is perceived as old-fashioned and outdated.

But 2D work hasn’t exactly stood still. It hasn’t been the same at least since xerography. Digital ink and paint, computer-generated layout work…filmmaking of any sort is not a static process. We don’t see movie monsters made with men in rubber suits shot at high-speed to play back with a sense of mass and gravity. Optical process special effects, matte painting, miniatures—we see less and less of these with the advent of more and more powerful processing and specialized technology. The best examples still play well and not just as products of their time: Mary Poppins, Star Wars, Roger Rabbit…and there are filmmakers who insist upon using classic methods in keeping with a project’s aesthetic, to no detriment (Coppola’s Dracula, the extensive use of miniatures in Moon—one of the best and most thought-provoking sci-fi films of the past quarter-century). Movies like Aladdin and The Lion King (and going all the way back to The Great Mouse Detective) have benefited tremendously from computer work; Davy Jones is a masterpiece of motion capture and computer animation.

The thing is that CG animation can do everything traditional animation could (technically, anyway), and more. For 2D work to come back will take artists and projects that can examine and embellish what makes that medium *special*, that can bring to the fore what 2D does that newer tech and artistry cannot. That’s a tall order. It will take time and perspective….but I think it will happen eventually. Everything old is new again—it’s a truism, but it’s rooted in truth.

[TsWade2]

And like I said, if Frozen was 2D, you can bet that hand-drawn animation would be back at Disney because either way, it would make a billion dollars. What poor timing!

I know, right? But I do enjoy the movie though.

[Fflewduur]

And like I said, if Frozen was 2D, you can bet that hand-drawn animation would be back at Disney because either way, it would make a billion dollars. What poor timing!

I know, right? But I do enjoy the movie though.

Well, it’s easy to make that assertion after the fact, and as long as one isn’t concerned about any real-world supporting evidence.


Facts:

• There are fewer than 20 films *ever*--animated or not--to gross a billion dollars or more (and the majority of them are sequels or remakes). If studios really *knew* what it took to make a billion-dollar movie, don’t you think there’d be more of them?

• There hasn’t been a Disney animated feature (Pixar films excluded) that’s come close to that mark in 20 years.
Considering that the average ticket price has doubled since The Lion King came out *and* Frozen had the advantage of opening on 1000 more screens, Frozen would very likely still be chasing TLK’s tail if changing economics were taken into account. (Yeah, TLK was a 2D feature, but the first real CG game changer didn’t even come out until a year later.)

• The next-highest-grossing 2D feature made less than half what Frozen has taken before Frozen's theatrical run has concluded, and it wasn’t a Disney film or even a particularly family-friendly film: it was The Simpsons.

• The highest-grossing Disney princess movie ever was the last one released. It was CG. And it grossed a little more than half of what Frozen has taken in to date. (Considering Tangled’s performance and budget--more than $100 million more than went into Frozen)--Disney would have realized a greater profit on Frozen than Tangled just by avoiding backsliding; the company would have been thrilled "just" to break $750 million, which would have put it in the running for reaching the top ten animated grossers of all time.)

So there’s no factual basis to assert Frozen could have performed *nearly* as well as a 2D feature unless the rationale is just “because ‘Let it Go!’”

[TsWade2]

Nevermind.

[Warm Regards]

Disney will not listen to select opinions. Heck, the US government never listens to the people's opinions unless they are rich or politcally powerful.

Anyone got a billion dollars to spare?

[TsWade2]

Disney will not listen to select opinions. Heck, the US government never listens to the people's opinions unless they are rich or politcally powerful.

Anyone got a billion dollars to spare?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRifKEf0xr8

[Disney's Divinity]

The thing is that CG animation can do everything traditional animation could (technically, anyway), and more

I don't think I could disagree with this statement more. Besides the fact that I find hand-drawn more expressive and fluid than 3D in nearly all cases, the best thing about 2D is that in 10 years time a 2D film won't look dated and unimpressive like a 3D film does/will.

Also, Frozen has not performed nearly as well as you/others think it has. Aladdin, Snow White, B&tB, and Sleeping Beauty among others are all still far ahead of Frozen when adjusted for inflation--and all these films are 2D. Of course, if you want to compare base numbers without taking into account inflation you could say Frozen is the best-selling animated film of all time, but then your argument loses all reason.

Your arguments about TP&TF are also flawed when you consider 1) That Disney was never behind that film the way they have been their 3D films the past decade because they had been looking for a reason to go exclusively 3D and John Lasseter is the only reason they bothered going back to hand-drawn animation for one blip in the radar (Yes, I know that's something positive with John Lasseter's name in the same sentence, how unlike me), and 2) Even TLM looks pitiful when compared to TLK--the point being that the beginning of a successful string of films has to start at the bottom. Especially considering Disney was even farther down the hole after the 2000's than they were when TLM came along.

So...

So there’s no factual basis to assert Frozen could have performed *nearly* as well as a 2D feature unless the rationale is just “because ‘Let it Go!’”

I would have to say that while your argument technically is "factual," they are skewed facts that conveniently ignore many other facts.

[Kyle]

The thing is that CG animation can do everything traditional animation could (technically, anyway), and more

I don't think I could disagree with this statement more. Besides the fact that I find hand-drawn more expressive and fluid than 3D in nearly all cases, the best thing about 2D is that in 10 years time a 2D film won't look dated and unimpressive like a 3D film does/will.

You have to think more with your left brain when considering what is technically possible versus your emotional response towards a certain medium. Technically speaking 3D is can do more. Part of what makes 2D more appealing to many is how is simplifies. Its limitations become become a strength. But hand drawn can't animate millions of blades of grass or strands of hair, keep track of complex lighting and physics, duplicate objects/characters or create patterns with ease at any angle. Those are hurdles that just can't be jumped. It can only suggest these things. You could argue a lot of this isn't needed or even appealing, but there are a lot of technical things that make 3d more flexible.

[unprincess]

you know one thing that I dont buy is when people say Disney ruined 2d by flooding the market with bad 2d films in theaters and dtv. But if thats the case, why hasnt the same thing happened with cgi flms by now with the oversaturation of horrible cgi movies that have been released to theaters since the 2000's?

is it just that cgi is so cool & shiny looking to people that you can do anything, even the worst dreck, & people will still flock to it? whereas with 2d audiences tastes were much more discerning. No wonder the suits love cgi.

[TsWade2]

If I was the CEO of Disney, I let them do more hand drawn animated movies than CGI movies. Where's the justice?

[MeerkatKombat]

why hasnt the same thing happened with cgi flms by now with the oversaturation of horrible cgi movies that have been released to theaters since the 2000's?

is it just that cgi is so cool & shiny looking to people that you can do anything, even the worst dreck, & people will still flock to it? whereas with 2d audiences tastes were much more discerning. No wonder the suits love cgi.

There are so many mediocre to crappy cgi films out there. You can't escape them at the Cinema.
Personally, the cgi market seems more flooded than 2D ever was.
I do like some cgi films but they have to work harder for my affection. I still believe 2D will make a comeback. People will get fed up of constant cgi eventually. Surely.

...But I can't whine about the lack of 2D animation. It won't push Disney to bring it back faster. We have to wait it out. Absolutely no point in anyone here losing sleep and getting seriously anxious over it. Yay for Disney back collection (and a couple of Don Bluths).
At the end of the day, Disney is a business. They want to make money and they will do whatever they think is the quickest was to do that and if cgi will make them money, then that's the logical thing to do. It isn't a case of evil executives all secretly hating 2D animation and loving the enjoyment that comes from disappointing 2D fans.

I believe that 2D is Disney's heart and they should eventually go back and honour it.

[TsWade2]

why hasnt the same thing happened with cgi flms by now with the oversaturation of horrible cgi movies that have been released to theaters since the 2000's?

is it just that cgi is so cool & shiny looking to people that you can do anything, even the worst dreck, & people will still flock to it? whereas with 2d audiences tastes were much more discerning. No wonder the suits love cgi.

There are so many mediocre to crappy cgi films out there. You can't escape them at the Cinema.
Personally, the cgi market seems more flooded than 2D ever was.
I do like some cgi films but they have to work harder for my affection. I still believe 2D will make a comeback. People will get fed up of constant cgi eventually. Surely.

...But I can't whine about the lack of 2D animation. It won't push Disney to bring it back faster. We have to wait it out. Absolutely no point in anyone here losing sleep and getting seriously anxious over it. Yay for Disney back collection (and a couple of Don Bluths).
At the end of the day, Disney is a business. They want to make money and they will do whatever they think is the quickest was to do that and if cgi will make them money, then that's the logical thing to do. It isn't a case of evil executives all secretly hating 2D animation and loving the enjoyment that comes from disappointing 2D fans.

I believe that 2D is Disney's heart and they should eventually go back and honour it.

I hope so too, my friend.

[Warm Regards]

is it just that cgi is so cool & shiny looking to people that you can do anything, even the worst dreck, & people will still flock to it? whereas with 2d audiences tastes were much more discerning. No wonder the suits love cgi.

Paraphraing here, the Nostalgia Critic (people are gonna kill me for mentioning his name ) once said CG is more "real", and audiences due to stereotypes like live action more than animation. CG has the "infinite" possibilities of hand drawn, while feeling more grounded in reality, if that makes sense.

But yeah, most CG films do make back their budget, don't they? And that encourages people to just trek along with the same old drivel.

[estefan]

I have been noticing lately that computer animated movies are borrowing a lot of rules from hand-drawn films. We seem to see a mix between pseudo-realistic looking movies and more cartoony computer-animated movies. The Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs movies, for example, aren't attempting the look more commonly associated with Pixar. The characters are super-rubbery, the designs are simplistic looking and they make no attempt to look realistic. And those films were very successful and well received by audiences.

It really depends what kind of story and humour you're using. The Fleischer-like animation of Cloudy wouldn't necessarily fit the script and worlds of Frozen or Epic and vice-versa.