Veteran Disney animator Randy Haycock talks about the future of 2D animation in the industry.
Q: I was curious on what you think awaits 2D animation given the current status of the industry.
Randy Haycock: I think 2D will always exist in some form, even if the big studios aren't producing it right now, there are many interesting things happening with 2D. Watch Glen Keene’s “Duet”, for example. I believe we will see a hand drawn feature again some day, but it may not look like what’s been done in the past. I believe the future of hand drawn animation will be exploring the art of the craft.
Source:
http://randyhaycock.tumblr.com/post/109 ... ll-you-how
He shares his thoughts on the never-ending debate of 2D vs. CG.
Q: What is your opinion on the animation industry transitioning from traditional animation to CG? I've observed many avid fans that prefer traditional criticize studios for using CG, as it seems less personalized. Thoughts?
Randy Haycock: Though, naturally I lament the dearth of hand drawn films being made today, I do love a lot of the CG films. I’m less concerned about the medium (when it comes to liking something) than about the story and characters. If those are good, I’m sold. "The Incredibles” is one of my favorite animated films. But I also love “The Iron Giant”. Brad Bird showed that the medium isn't as important as the execution of the material. They are two very different movies, but I enjoyed them both for their humor and heart.
With that in mind, I love hand drawn animation. It has a personal quality that can’t be duplicated. It’s a quality that comes across in the personal styles and approaches of drawing and timing and acting of the individual animators. I love being able to identify an artist’s work by these things. It’s an artistic quality that lets me in the mind of the artist, tells me how he/she feels about what they are drawing. That kind of individual approach is possible, but has been discouraged in CG animation. The goal is to make all the animation look as if it were done by one person. A valid goal. I think, however, by casting an animator on a specific character, letting him/her live in that character, the character itself becomes more an individual, defined not only by the story, but by the views and feelings of the animator. It’s something that other animators (CG and hand drawn) and I have talked about and some agree. So, we’ll see how it plays out in future films.
I think Disney right now has the finest CG animators in the business working on their films. They are every one capable of achieving the kind of artistry I've been describing. They have already set the bar very high in the quality of their work and I believe they can achieve that personal quality I’m talking about if they are given the opportunity and the material.
One last word on hand drawn animation. I love to draw. I love expressing myself though drawing. I get into a “groove” when I’m animating pencil on paper. It’s a state where I can’t get my ideas on the paper fast enough. Hours flow by unheeded, and before I know it the day is gone. It’s a euphoric feeling that I cherish. So I will always find a way to animate with drawings because it makes me happy to do it. It’s one of the best things about being an artist, and I don’t take it for granted.
Source:
http://randyhaycock.tumblr.com/post/110 ... ion-on-the
He talks about perceptions of 2D animation in America vs Europe and Japan.
Q: Why do you think 2D animation still has an audience in Japan and Europe (particularly the French/Belgian productions)? Do you believe it is because they tend to have more of a variety in both story and style or is it just a cultural difference? I feel like American studios tend to go either family-friendly or adult comedy full of snappy dialogue. Is there no middle-ground here, or has it just stayed underground and away from mainstream media? Have your experiences proved otherwise?
Randy Haycock: Although it’s true that Americans have a limited view of what animation should be, I don’t think that’s a factor in the lack of 2D. The European production and funding processes are different than in the US (more like an independent film, with multiple investors and little to no in house work, or per project contracts, whereas in the US it’s much more expensive to produce an animated film and therefore the profit margins have to be higher). I do believe that in Japan the popularity of Manga and its influence on Anime helps keep 2D culturally relevant.
I personally would like to see animation approach other forms of storytelling that would speak to different audiences. (I think “The Incredibles” was a step in that direction.) But it will take some time (and maybe a new generation) to get there with American audiences. I would like to see hand drawn animation progress and evolve. I don’t necessarily think it should always look like it has for the past 100 years. I like to think that if we did a 2D film that didn't look like it was painted on cells, but had an illustrative, or painterly quality that was completely new, we might begin to show the potential of the medium. Maybe then we could win back an audience for hand drawn.
Source:
http://randyhaycock.tumblr.com/post/110 ... ill-has-an
He also talks about whether 2D animation will ever make a comeback.
Q: Just wondering, do you think there will be a return of 2D animation anytime soon? I appreciate the art of many CG movies, but there is something so special about 2D that I really don't want to be lost, and I think it could still do well at the box office. Maybe it wasn't the style of animation that made Princess and the Frog not do so well-- I mean, look at your art! It's crazy beautiful! Maybe the subject matter was just too tough for children?
Randy Haycock: I hope there will be a return of hand drawn animation. I agree that it has a unique quality that can’t be reproduced any other way. There are still folks out there who have some influence that are trying to keep it alive. If we see more hand drawn animation in the near future it will be in short films and maybe an independently produced feature. I don’t think the big studios have any plans for hand drawn at this time. But if a small, independent film comes out and does well, they could be persuaded. For them, it’s all about box office. I think there were a number of factors in why Princess and the Frog didn't perform as well as the CG films (It was still profitable, by the way, just not AS profitable). Perhaps the marketing wasn't right. Perhaps it was released against other family franchises that already had a guaranteed audience. I guess if we could figure that out we could guarantee all movies would be hits.
Source:
http://randyhaycock.tumblr.com/post/110 ... -you-think
He explains why Disney abandoned hand-drawn animation.
Q: I know you've talked about CG vs 2D drawn animation before. What I'd like to ask is why? Why is Disney only making CG films? I've seen all these Frozen pencil tests, ones from Wreck-It Ralph, Tangled and so on and they look great, so I've got to know why they throw out all that craftsmanship away for bland, dull looking CG characters? They can still churn out 2D animated films yearly they did it in the 90's and it'd be easier now with the help of computers.
Randy Haycock: There is a simple answer to that. Animation is a business, and CG films make more money. If Princess and the Frog had made $500 million at the box office you bet we’d be making more of them. Unfortunately, the audience today for hand drawn films is not big enough for a major studio to want to keep making them. I think if a hand drawn film wanted to compete today it would have to find a new look and approach that is different from what’s been done in the past. Audiences love to see new things (as long as the story is engaging). So, I believe if a film maker can find the backing to do a hand drawn film that looked completely fresh and original (and appealing), they might find some success. Now let me say that I do not find CG to be bland or dull. Sometimes the stories are bland and dull, but I think both CG and Hand Drawn animation are unique, individual mediums and they both have value and appeal. I addressed these qualities in an earlier post. I hope there will someday again be room in the market for both.
Source:
http://randyhaycock.tumblr.com/post/110 ... s-2d-drawn
He advises aspiring animators to learn CG if they want to get a job in the industry.
Q: Hi, I love your art and appreciate the pencil tests posted. I would like to A) Be an animator but I don't want to B) Work in 3D and C) Be homeless. Do I have to pick 2? Could I realistically land a job with just a kick-ass demo reel of traditional stuff?
Randy Haycock: I’m afraid that the reality of the industry (in the US at least) is that if you want to be an animator but don’t want to be homeless, is that you will need to learn to animate in CG. That is where the work is. None of the big studios are working in hand-drawn at this point. That’s not to say it may not have a rebirth at some point, but today it’s all CG. As far as the demo real, I know that Pixar would hire an animator based on a really strong hand-drawn demo reel. They figure the real talent lies in the ability to animate. They can teach you how to use the tools to do it in CG. That said, it’s always best to have some CG stuff on your reel as well.
Source:
http://randyhaycock.tumblr.com/post/113 ... ncil-tests
That doesn't change the fact that I don't enjoy most of their output, and feel they contributed to the temporary downfall of animation in many ways. I enjoy seeing their films suffer, especially when they're consistently mediocre or flat out AWFUL and they crank out THREE per year. Frankly they got cocky, and they deserve this slump after attempting to oversaturate the market with poorly planned junk. I'm sorry, but it'd be a bad thing if some of the brainless garbage they put out caught on because it'd affect the trends of the industry as a whole.
