DVDizzy Forum

unprincess wrote:it would be interesting to see these from past decades and see how the franchises and what characters Disney considers "worthy" have changed.

unprincess wrote:^ is that thing real? what is that, a stock certificate?

Wade, you really need to read through these articles carefully b4 you post, what he's saying is what we've been saying all along, 2d animation will not return through the studio system b/c their only interest is making money. I appreciate that he's telling the truth unlike Disney itself which keeps pushing on the myth that theyre still a handrawn producing studio that only cares about the art...

he loves hand drawn and stop motion and he is definitly on our side!

Q: The situation of hand drawn animation seems to be really awful. The few attempts at making a hand-drawn animated movie in the last few years (The Princess and the Frog, Winnie The Pooh) were failures. If we look at huge successes like Frozen's, we may think the best way to survive in the animation industry is investing only in 3D animation because 2D seems to be “old”. Is 2D animation slowly dying? And could Hullabaloo really save this technique as you say in the movie's presentation on Indiegogo?

James Lopez: First, let me make a few things clear. Princess and the Frog and Winnie The Pooh were not failures, as they did turn in a profit and were both positively reviewed. That misconception is part of the reason why 2D animation is in the situation that it is in. 2D is an art form like any other in that it needs mentoring in order to be passed down. Where that mentoring most effectively takes place is in the professional working environment and unfortunately there are not enough 2D animated films in production that exhibit the level of quality that we are proposing to not only preserve but advance the medium as well. What we are hoping with Hullabaloo is to open the door and pave the way for the next generation of animators to be inspired by and continue practicing the art form so that it may thrive.

Q: You worked on the Academy Award winner short Paperman. Do you think that mixing the two techniques could be another way to help traditional animation survive?

James Lopez: Any business, in order to survive, it needs to be practical. Paperman’s technical process of mixing the two, in the way that it was performed, proved to be impractical from a business standpoint. What Paperman truly had to offer was a good story combined with good art direction, cinematography and appealing characters that had a hand-drawn aesthetic. The process used to create that look could be done without the technology and be more practical in the business sense. What will ultimately help traditional animation survive is if it there is a greater sense of artistry and cinematography that is applied to the look and design of the picture.

Q: During the decades the art of animation has always been refined by developing and using new techniques which always replace the older ones. So, in your opinion why is it so important to preserve 2D animation? What can this “old” technique give to modern audiences?

James Lopez: As it has just been suggested, it would to keep using new techniques. We’ve developed a technique that will merge CG environments and 2D characters in a way that has never been used before in order to give it an artful and cinematic look which is what audiences seem to respond to today. It’s a shame that 2D has to unfairly prove itself in order to uphold its relevance when it is a valid art form like any other. When music synthesizers were introduced, we didn't stop playing instruments. Orchestras still exist and we still pay money to see live performances instead of just listening to engineered and recorded tracks on our stereo. So why, when CG is introduced, do we negate 2D?

If the case is a matter of box-office results, not all live-action films are big-budgeted blockbusters but studios still continue to make films with a modest budget that people enjoy seeing and even win awards. Take for example, The Artist. It was in black and white and had no sound. It was reminiscent of the silent film era and it won Best Picture at the Gloden Globes, BAFTA and the Academy Awards. It also made money. So, if being “old” possesses the potential of success, why not produce a 2D film?

2D animation is an art. Art is a common language that unites the world. To lose 2D would be like losing a language. In order for our culture to grow, it will come from people being inspired. 2D is an art that inspires. I receive several emails and read countless messages that thank me and the production for our efforts to keep the art of 2D in practice because the next generation dreams and aspires to make great 2D animated films. It’s a part of our heritage and its destined to be our future.

Over time, it has somehow been propagated that animated filmmaking must be an either/or proposition, 2D vs. CG and vice versa. It’s time to change the conversation. There is room for both and both can keep the integrity of what each other has to offer without compromise. It’s time to recognize 2D for what it is. It is a valid art form, a powerful tool that can inspire and it is also a commercially viable option for success.

..........
Q: Reading your biography on your blog, we've noticed that you stopped working for many studios every time they gave up on 2D and started to work exclusively with CGI animation. Have you ever thought about giving 3D animation a chance? Why haven't you ever stopped working with 2D animation even though you knew studios didn’t value it anymore?

Alexa Summerfield: Well it was not my choice to stop working for the studios as much as them not needing my services any longer. At DreamWorks they tried to help us make the change to 3D/CGI, but it was frustrating to me and if I wanted to puppeteer (thats what it is to animate in 3D, really) I would have gone to Aardman or Henson's to do that, but I love to draw and since you don’t really draw in 3D that was not my road to take. I will never give up on traditional animation because I love it and to me it has a charm and agelessness beyond time and it is already missed by the young artists of the animation world, even if the big studios keep denying its value. People still want to see it and our success with the IndieGogo campaign for Hullabaloo has shown just that so prominently. It is my passion and my life and we will find a way to keep it afloat because I believe there is space for all types of animation today and in the future.

Q: Major studios always repeat that CGI is cheaper than hand-drawn animation. But we have noticed that movies like Frozen needed a huge budget (about $150-200 million), while movies like Winnie the Pooh show perfect 2D animation, and they cost around $30 million. Is it really just a matter of money?

Alexa Summerfield: Well, when traditional animation was all there was in the big studios and 3D was just starting out everyone said that CGI was so much cheaper than 2D and slowly they all converted, now 2D is cheaper that 3D, go figure??? If you take one hundred artists and pay them $100,000 a year for 2 years of production, it adds up to $20 million. Add another 10 million for computers, supplies and all the rest you need to make the movie that costs $30 million. So where do they spend the rest of the $100 million we all would like to know… Anyway the money issue is not really the point, the truth is that big studios have abandoned traditional animation for now and it is up to us to keep it alive with projects like Hullabaloo. So we need all the support we can get from the people that still believe in hand drawn animation.

DisneyJedi wrote:Well... If he's on our side and loves hand-drawn, then... Well...

Why doesn't he do something about it instead of just lamenting?!

Sotiris wrote:

Q: The situation of hand drawn animation seems to be really awful. The few attempts at making a hand-drawn animated movie in the last few years (The Princess and the Frog, Winnie The Pooh) were failures. If we look at huge successes like Frozen's, we may think the best way to survive in the animation industry is investing only in 3D animation because 2D seems to be “old”. Is 2D animation slowly dying? And could Hullabaloo really save this technique as you say in the movie's presentation on Indiegogo?

James Lopez: First, let me make a few things clear. Princess and the Frog and Winnie The Pooh were not failures, as they did turn in a profit and were both positively reviewed. That misconception is part of the reason why 2D animation is in the situation that it is in. 2D is an art form like any other in that it needs mentoring in order to be passed down. Where that mentoring most effectively takes place is in the professional working environment and unfortunately there are not enough 2D animated films in production that exhibit the level of quality that we are proposing to not only preserve but advance the medium as well. What we are hoping with Hullabaloo is to open the door and pave the way for the next generation of animators to be inspired by and continue practicing the art form so that it may thrive.

Semaj wrote:When CGI films "underperform", they get a free pass.

DisneyJedi wrote:

Semaj wrote:When CGI films "underperform", they get a free pass.

That's because they're being hypocrites.

unprincess wrote:more confirmation that PATF & WTP were not flops financially..

Steve Hulett wrote:But hey. It's an art form.

'The Boxtrolls' And Why It's Crazy To Do Stop-Motion Animation

“It’s the worst way to make a movie,” said [producer Travis] Knight. “It makes no sense. You’re cutting your hands and contorting your body. But it’s an incredible art form that is so rare and so beautiful.” ...

“Stop-motion combines all the worst aspects of live and stop-motion,” said director Anthony Stacchi at Comic-Con. “It’s very much a performance. We might do one rough pass of moving the puppets and a rehearsal but then we really have to do the whole scene in one go.” ...

Tell us something we don't know.

The reason that more studios don't do more stop motion isn't because it's difficult. Or time consuming.

It's that the big studios have made lots more money with CGI animated features than the other versions of animation. If our fine entertainment conglomerates made bigger grosses from stop motion and/or hand-drawn animation, then the multiplexes would be full of them.

But CGI animated features are the coins of the realm, so that's what Disney, Fox-News Corp, Sony and Viacom tend to mint. There are, of course, the occasional stop-motion/hand-drawn feature from Europe (and elsewhere), but these are small-budget releases that mostly earn small grosses. Niche, boutique features, if you will. (We'll leave off the specialty items derived from tv shows like The Simpsons or Sponge Bob Square Pants).

Until the market changes, CGI features will be what most companies focus on.

Q: Do you think Hullabaloo actually will help revive hand-drawn animation or bring it to a new generation?

Tom Bancroft: I think it’s asking a lot from an animated short from one person. Will it help? Yes. It’s certainly not going to hurt anything to get it out there to the public. There are people that are hearing “Oh wait, hand-drawn isn't being done anymore?” There’s a lot of people that don’t know that story. So yeah, him bringing it to the forefront saying "Let’s bring it back and this is one way we’re going to do it" is a bold statement. It’s very smart of him to sell it that way. Because is it. There’s no way they’re going to say it isn't going to help. In a way, he’s doing it.

Semaj wrote:Anyone among us interested in becoming a shareholder?

Reporter: What do you think of James Lopez's Hullabaloo for reviving 2d hand drawn animation?

Bob Iger: (Smirk) HA! Good luck for that! James and his former traditional animating friends are total losers. I made a right choice to fire them. In fact, I officially declare that 2D hand drawn animation is dead. And that will be a lesson for them for staying in the past instead of sticking to CGI.

Reporter: What do you think of James Lopez's Hullabaloo for reviving 2d hand drawn animation?

John Lasseter: (Being nervous) Uh....well.....I...uh......Oh look, Meryl Streep!

Reporter: (Turning his head) Where?

(And John Lasseter is running away and personal soiled his pants.)

Reporter: I guess the interview is over.

disneyprincess11 wrote:^^Yup, pretty much