Hand-Drawn Animation Dead at Disney

[disneyprincess11]

Sony Pictures just released a scene/animation test for their upcoming, Popeye film. And wow: Another 2D/3D look!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1lzJuwJD9k[/youtube]

[jazzflower92]

Sony Pictures just released a scene/animation test for their upcoming, Popeye film. And wow: Another 2D/3D look!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1lzJuwJD9k[/youtube]

Well, they already did a live action version of Popeye so it would make more sense for them to do a computer animated version of it. It does really have the spirit of the original cartoons.

[Sotiris]

And wow: Another 2D/3D look!

It's not a 2D/3D look. Can we please stop saying that every time a CG film comes out that deviates from photorealism? Whether a CG film employs caricature or rubber hose or squash & stretch, it's still CG. Let's stop confusing style with medium.

[Sotiris]

A few interesting articles on hand-drawn animation.

Does Hand-Drawn Animation Need Saving?
http://ladiesofcomicazi.com/2014/09/17/ ... ed-saving/

Debate: Traditional vs. CGI Animation
http://www.showmetheanimation.com/index ... animation/

Traditional Animation: A Disrespected Old Friend
http://thegatewayonline.ca/2015/02/trad ... ld-friend/

Why Hand Drawn Disney Movies Will Always Hit You In The Feels
http://www.bustle.com/articles/156419-w ... -the-feels

[disneyprincess11]

Idk, Sotrisis. To me, it looks 2D AND CGI. It's obviously 3D, but it has given me a 2D feel and look

[Warm Regards]

What confuses me: has CG become that cheap to make? Not looking, I mean, but production costs? Because why else use CG to emulate hand drawn when you could... use hand drawn?

It's like buying a Hot Pocket that's pizza flavor. You can put as much cheese or make it as round as you want, but in the end wouldn't it be more practical to just make a pizza?

Plus if it IS cheap now, what incentive do studios have to go back to hand drawn, providing this film grosses enough to impress?

I'll shut up now.

[Tangled]

What confuses me: has CG become that cheap to make? Not looking, I mean, but production costs? Because why else use CG to emulate hand drawn when you could... use hand drawn?.

Because CG is better for certain things. For example, CGI does better with textures, such as hair or fabric (just look at Olive's dress), plus depth, lighting and shadows are easier to show with CGI than hand-drawn.

Why choose to restrict mediums when you can be innovative and combine two to have the best of both worlds?

[ajmrowland]

CG also has automated effects and singular character models where 2D would have to have different drawings for either of those. That means less money going to paper and pencils, and the digital format and storage are being maintained regardless of the production.

[unprincess]

Already we’ve seen techniques from the early days of feature animation lost because no one though it was important to write down how it was done or share that knowledge with a younger group of animators. How many more aspects of the craft could be lost if the next generation of animators is off learning how to manipulate polygons instead of wield pencils? What knowledge might be lost if the giants of the medium have no one to pass on their secrets to? Are television and the internet really shielded from an computer animation takeover like the one that hit Hollywood?

this is what worries me the most from the article Sotiris linked to. By the time people become bored with CGI & some studio says lets go back to hand drawn style no ones gonna be around to know how to make one.

though once CGI isnt making money for the studios anymore Im not even sure theyll want to go back to hand drawn, which will probably be an expensive transition(return?) more likely theyll just try to work with what they already have and try to find something new they can do with CGI, which is what we're seeing right now with Peanuts & Popeye.

and speaking of the 2d-3d/whatever you wanna call it style...its still mostly looks like CGI to me, but not as photorealistic & sterile. I feel like Im watching soft clay shapes, but without the jerkyness & tactilness of claymation. Which is a good thing... at least its different.

[jazzflower92]

Already we’ve seen techniques from the early days of feature animation lost because no one though it was important to write down how it was done or share that knowledge with a younger group of animators. How many more aspects of the craft could be lost if the next generation of animators is off learning how to manipulate polygons instead of wield pencils? What knowledge might be lost if the giants of the medium have no one to pass on their secrets to? Are television and the internet really shielded from an computer animation takeover like the one that hit Hollywood?

this is what worries me the most from the article Sotiris linked to. By the time people become bored with CGI & some studio says lets go back to hand drawn style no ones gonna be around to know how to make one.

though once CGI isnt making money for the studios anymore Im not even sure theyll want to go back to hand drawn, which will probably be an expensive transition(return?) more likely theyll just try to work with what they already have and try to find something new they can do with CGI, which is what we're seeing right now with Peanuts & Popeye.

and speaking of the 2d-3d/whatever you wanna call it style...its still mostly looks like CGI to me, but not as photorealistic & sterile. I feel like Im watching soft clay shapes, but without the jerkyness & tactilness of claymation. Which is a good thing... at least its different.

I say having the Peanuts and Popeye in CGI is better than having them in a really bad pop culture laden live action movie with toilet humor. Not to mention there was already a Popeye movie with Robin Williams (R.I.P.)

[Lady Cluck]

It's not remotely a 2D/3D look. It's just 3D.

People seem to think 3D is synonymous with merely photorealism and lacking any creativity and artistry, but there are many different artistic styles one can employ with CG. We're just seeing more different styles now because more studios are making more films, and they're getting better at it.

[Sotiris]

Again, with this nonsense. Give it a rest, already. You're not fooling anyone, Disney. It's particularly ironic for Musker to be saying that when we know very well that Moana was initially planned as a 2D film and they were forced to change it to CG.


Source: https://twitter.com/stitchkingdom/statu ... 9776355328

[Babaloo]

Okay I was at the talk today, and pretty much said what Stitch Kingdom reported. BUT to me, the way that Musker was talking, it sounded more "hopeful" then it sounded like a fact (if that makes sense). When the question was asked, "do you think that traditional animation will make a comeback at Disney?", they both took a bit, and then said "I really hope so".

However, at the screening of Little Mermaid, they treated us to the short Feast, and I have to say if that's the closest form we will get to 2d animation, then I will gladly take it. It was beautifully animated, and my friend who came with me (who knows nothing about animation), kept whispering to me how cool the short looked, and no I never told her about hoe Feast was supposed to be some landmark animated short. I also got to toalk to Patrick Osborne, the director of Feast, and he said the same thing as Musker. He told me at Disney, it's really up to the director of the film to decide the medium, but there's a philosophy that for traditional animation, the story REALLY has to convince the audience that 2d animation is necessary.

***Just as a side note, John Musker, Ron Clements, and Patrick Osborne are all extremely kind people. It was amazing getting to meet them and seeing how humble they are.

[Warm Regards]

He told me at Disney, it's really up to the director of the film to decide the medium, but there's a philosophy that for traditional animation, the story REALLY has to convince the audience that 2d animation is necessary.

The issue is that there's no incentive for hand drawn. Any idea can be given and they'd find a reason to make the whole thing CG. "CG will make Rapunzel's hair more realistic", "CG will make the snow more realistic".

The only real incentive there could be is that hand drawn is profitable, but Lion King came out over two decades ago, and Frozen has since surpassed that.

[DisneyJedi]

He told me at Disney, it's really up to the director of the film to decide the medium, but there's a philosophy that for traditional animation, the story REALLY has to convince the audience that 2d animation is necessary.

Oh, really? If the medium is up to the director, then why the hell aren't they being allowed to have their movies made the way they want them done instead of having their arms twisted to make the movies CGI? Better yet, why do I get the feeling that when it comes to a movie's medium, Disney has to do a "their way or the highway" ordeal?

[disneyprincess11]

Idk why Musker and the rest of the Disney people even bother. It's obvious the executives want 2D gone. It seems like the Disney executives were dragged into making PATF & WTP 2D and they were just hoping for them to bomb, so they can take it away like that

[DisneyJedi]

At this rate, I'm starting to assume that's the case, disneyprincess.

[unprincess]

yeah, its hard to take anyone who is currently employed at the studio at face value. That place the talk was held, probably there were some press and a few "suits" who consult with the hire ups. The artists have to be very careful with what they tell people. They still want to feed their families. I feel sorry for them.

I bet Disney gives mandatory seminars just on how to have their studio employees deal with the question...

[TsWade2]

Idk why Musker and the rest of the Disney people even bother. It's obvious the executives want 2D gone. It seems like the Disney executives were dragged into making PATF & WTP 2D and they were just hoping for them to bomb, so they can take it away like that

I told you those executives are evil and greedy douche bags! They're the real Disney villains who wants their hand drawn animation to die. That's why we need a new CEO which will better be Tom Staggs, to stop those executives to ruin the the Disney legacy. Those executives will pay for this. I like to see all those executives fired! And I mean way way way fired!

[taei]

It's quite honestly a conflict of interest.
On one hand I can kinda agree with them because this is a studio that is built on making money now. And after all, it is a business. So their main goal is focused on money rather than the consumer's needs. The princess and the frog did horrible at the box office and that is understandable as it had many things going against it.
As for Pooh... Whose smart idea was it to pin this movie against the VERY last very climactic Hogwarts burning poster Harry Potter?
This is why I agree with Disneyprincess11 on the execs not wanting 2D.

On the other hand, they could go bankrupt and make 2D movies.
Although it is weird. Can anyone explain to me why the earlier Hand-drawn movies had a significantly lower budget than the later ones? Even when adjusting for inflation when compared to today.

This is no longer about whether or not the story doesn't lend itself because I can say that about many movies.

1. Little Mermaid - movie takes place under water so it's hard to animate without computers.
2. Beauty and the beast - movie has a beast, so it's hard to draw.
3. Aladdin - The magic carpet is hard to draw.
4. Lion King - Movie is filled with animals, scenery, and a lot of emotional drama that can't be expressed though hand-drawn.
5. Pocahontas - Colors of the win will be better in CGI
6. Hunchback - Notredame is too hard to do in hand-drawn.

Do you see a pattern here?
You can come up with many reasons why a movie wasn't hand drawn but this one reason is not sufficient.

Will 2D have a come back?
I don't think so.
Frozen would have been that movie that brought back 2D.
2D isn't about the story, it's about which movie will bring in the most money.
If Frozen was 2D then we'd see more 2D movies announced by now.

And honestly.. I don't think it'll ever have a comeback because it's just not in the studio's best interest to waste money on a format that people just simply aren't getting their asses to a movie theater to see.
Which is why it pains to say this... 2D will never have a comeback.
Maybe one day when computers have taken over the world that the only way for us to make entertainment is through hand-drawing images.

Honestly.. to me.. I could careless about what format it is in as long as the story and the magic is there.
I base my opinion on whether or not the movie is good rather than the medium.
I've seen some hand-drawn animation that had come out recently and didn't think much of them.
Like Earnst and Celestine. The movie was meh and my opinion had nothing to do with the fact that it was hand-drawn. I can say the same thing about the secret of Kells.