Hand-Drawn Animation Dead at Disney

[Disney's Divinity]

Matt Maners who worked on The Princess and the Frog as an effects animator says that the production budget for the film was $70 million and not $105 million as reported by Box Office Mojo. Previously, an anonymous commenter who claimed they worked on the film said it cost only $65 million: "I worked on PATF and while I was there we were told the budget was $65 million and we came in under budget as well."

More and more proof that Disney was ready to declare TP&TF DOA from the beginning. It made more than twice its budget then, not to speak of how popular it was in DVD sales when it was released + princess merchandise.

[ce1ticmoon]

Roger Allers talks about how he was forced to make the framing story in The Prophet in CG because it was cheaper and faster.

That's really too bad that they had to take so many shortcuts... Because, the final product definitely doesn't look very good. Which is really, really too bad, considering how beautiful the other segments look. Kinda bummed to know that it was intended to look very different than how it ended up looking.

its funny isnt it? To make their CGI characters look better, they have to hire traditional animators to draw over their models...instead of just making the movie traditionally hand drawn in the first place.

if CG animation is supposedly the "superior" medium, why do studios always need 2D animators to improve their CG animation?

I don't really see it as funny or ironic... The CGI animation is the final product, but there are a lot of other processes involved beforehand, including drawing, which is still obviously a huge part of various stages of production in CGI films. I think it makes perfect sense to have a traditional animator do the "draw overs," since they need someone who (A) understands the principles of animation, and (B) can draw. Plus, I think the statement about stylized/cartoony characters being more difficult to animate in CGI is true, especially when the movements have to be exaggerated, so to have a 2D animator on board to help with that stuff is really a "must."

It's true, you can make the argument, why not just make it a 2D film in the first place? But I think that's kind of beside the point. If CGI animation can make improvements by using 2D animation as a guideline, why wouldn't they make it part of their process?

[Disney's Divinity]

It's true, you can make the argument, why not just make it a 2D film in the first place? But I think that's kind of beside the point.

That's the whole point. They have no place for 2D at their studio, and yet they want their 3D films to look more like 2D.

[DisneyFan09]

Apparently, Pixar is also having 2D animators help out on their films with draw-overs now. I've got a question though: if CG animation is supposedly the "superior" medium, why do studios always need 2D animators to improve their CG animation?

True. It's understandable if they want to make CGI to look as handdrawn, but it's still contradicting.

[2Disney4Ever]

Apparently, Pixar is also having 2D animators help out on their films with draw-overs now. I've got a question though: if CG animation is supposedly the "superior" medium, why do studios always need 2D animators to improve their CG animation?

True. It's understandable if they want to make CGI to look as handdrawn, but it's still contradicting.

They just want to make CGI feel like it's got the qualities of hand-drawn to make people not miss hand-drawn, but you see how those movies actually look and it's STILL CGI! To truly acknowledge that you value the appeal of 2D art, you have to be willing to express it through doing real 2D animation (which is what Disney did when they made Princess and the Frog), not by trying to make CG animation feel more like it, because that's just another excuse for why CG movies should replace actual hand-drawn art. No artistic medium should ever have the right to take the place of any other.

[ce1ticmoon]

That's the whole point. They have no place for 2D at their studio, and yet they want their 3D films to look more like 2D.

Their end goal is already etched in stone--that is to create a CGI animated film--and there is sadly nothing that can be done about that (at least, for the time being). I say that it's beside the point, because the option for 2D just doesn't exist. Whether we like that or not, and no matter how misguided their reasoning is, the requirement that comes from the executive level is that animated films must be CGI. The creative team really has no control over that aspect. (Regardless of the spiel they try to sell us about the directors being able to choose the medium they want.)

With all of that in mind, using a traditional animator for draw overs and having him help to improve the animation on the CGI feature is a creative decision, most likely made at a more hands-on level (i.e. not by the executives). The directors, supervising animators, and whathaveyou must truly believe that bringing in traditional animators onto CGI films will benefit the end product.

And I don't think that bringing in 2D animators to help improve the animation necessarily means they are trying to make the CGI films "look more like 2D." Most of the animation principles that they follow originate from 2D animation, so again, it makes sense to bring someone like that onto the project. They are not necessarily trying to emulate 2D with 3D, but they are trying to give the CGI films a dynamism that is more inherent, or at least easier to achieve, in 2D animation. And that definitely isn't a bad thing. If anything, CGI films can use a lot more of that.

So on the one hand, there are the executives, who refuse to believe that anything other than CG films are a valid moneymaker. But on the other hand, you have the creatives, who know and respect 2D, and know how much can be gained from following in the footsteps of 2D animation. I don't see the irony or "funny" in the situation here, because the two opposing points to what appears to be a contradiction actually arises from two different places with two very different mindsets. At least, that's how I see it.

[2Disney4Ever]

Well, I guess my disapproval of Disney's CG movies is really targeted more towards the executives then.

They want to put out the agenda that they think "2D isn't good anymore" or "people only care about CGI"? Well then I'll prove them wrong by not buying/seeing any of the CG movies that serve that agenda, or even any Disney merchandise that has anything to do with those movies. As a consumer, it's one of the best ways I can try to express to a studio that "This is NOT what I want!".

[Disney's Divinity]

So on the one hand, there are the executives, who refuse to believe that anything other than CG films are a valid moneymaker. But on the other hand, you have the creatives, who know and respect 2D, and know how much can be gained from following in the footsteps of 2D animation. I don't see the irony or "funny" in the situation here, because the two opposing points to what appears to be a contradiction actually arises from two different places with two very different mindsets. At least, that's how I see it.

The belief that 2D is inferior isn't just something coming from executives. We've already read plenty of hints that many 3D animators, particularly those who moved over to Disney from Pixar, see 2D as the old, the past, the lesser. Any definition of the word would apply irony to this situation.

[2Disney4Ever]

The belief that 2D is inferior isn't just something coming from executives. We've already read plenty of hints that many 3D animators, particularly those who moved over to Disney from Pixar, see 2D as the old, the past, the lesser. Any definition of the word would apply irony to this situation.

And yet we're still expected to look highly on their work if they do? If they have such an insulting disregard for the art that came before them, then why should I even want to like the work they've been doing in Tangled, Frozen, Wreck-It Ralph, etc.?

Hopefully most of these animators do care about 2D and it's the executives that force them to do what they're doing.

[Disney's Divinity]

There's no knowing by name who thinks that way though, so I can still look on the work being done with Frozen, WIR, and so on, and see the good things. Actually, I'm glad they're taking things from hand-drawn if 3D is all we're going to get, but the bitter side of me can see the humor, too.

Back to what I said about TP&TF, I'll throw in Lasseter's favor that his pull might be the only way that film and WtP were made at all. I don't think the executives wanted to do it though, so made sure to put the kibosh on any kind of hand-drawn revival by overdramatizing TP&TF's supposed "failure."

[2Disney4Ever]

There's no knowing by name who thinks that way though, so I can still look on the work being done with Frozen, WIR, and so on, and see the good things. Actually, I'm glad they're taking things from hand-drawn if 3D is all we're going to get, but the bitter side of me can see the humor, too.

Back to what I said about TP&TF, I'll throw in Lasseter's favor that his pull might be the only way that film and WtP were made at all. I don't think the executives wanted to do it though, so made sure to put the kibosh on any kind of hand-drawn revival by overdramatizing TP&TF's supposed "failure."

Yeah, there was no doubt in my mind that Lasseter truly cared about hand-drawn animation when he first got put in charge of Disney animation and made the push to try and bring it back. As for now, I'm not sure.

But I know that even back when Pixar first started introducing people to computer animated movies with Toy Story, there was no agenda on their minds of "We think this is superior and everyone should quit 2D animation for this!". They were wanting to bring some diversity into animation. Something new that could go along with hand-drawn, stop-motion, claymation, etc. That's why I've always had more of a soft spot for Pixar than I do all those other CG studios. But what ultimately happened in the end is that CGI has caused so much of our loss of artistic diversity.

And the fact that Princess and the Frog gets so unfairly labeled as a failure for being hand-drawn still angers me, cause what I watched was a genuinely good movie.

[disneyprincess11]

Hopefully most of these animators do care about 2D and it's the executives that force them to do what they're doing.

That is sadly the case here. During his PATF interviews, you can just tell that Lassenter's heart was all in it and how happy he was about 2D and fairytales coming back. At the end of the day, however, it's all about the big guns: The executives.

Remember, right after PATF, they IMMEDIATELY cancelled Frozen & Giants. They only kept Tangled because it was like 90% done. The title & the marketing were deemed the final run tests for fairytales. Unfortunately, CGI & Dreamworks marketing & Pixar names won. So, the only way we have fairytales is if it blends in.

It amazes me though that even after Frozen became a success for what is it (story-wise), they're still determined to keep 2D away. Tangled defientely taught them they quitted WAY too quickly, after ONLY ONE fairytale didn't succeed. The problem was they chose the wrong times to do 2D. PATF failed because of Avatar & Winnie the Pooh failed because a) Harry Potter and b) IT'S WINNIE THE POOH. If Frozen was 2D, Moana (which was written to be 2D) & Giants would have been 2D. Now Disney is back on the map, they can easily do 2D (like everyone demands. Read the comments on FB & YT). But, it's the executives, not Lassenter.

[2Disney4Ever]

Yep, it's definitely because of the executives that I now hate the very sight of CG movies and are the reason why I'm so sick of watching them. They've taken what Pixar started with sincere intentions and turned it into a vehicle for them to push out their belief that CGI is now the only good medium in animation.

[ce1ticmoon]

The belief that 2D is inferior isn't just something coming from executives. We've already read plenty of hints that many 3D animators, particularly those who moved over to Disney from Pixar, see 2D as the old, the past, the lesser. Any definition of the word would apply irony to this situation.

Eh, maybe there is irony where it concerns those particular animators then. I'm talking about the bigger picture though. While I wouldn't deny that there are CG animators that do have that sort of attitude, as I've seen some such comments myself (or at least, comments that can be construed as such), I don't believe that it is the prevailing attitude among CG animators, whether they originally came from Pixar or elsewhere. I don't believe that true students of animation could simply dismiss the most significant part of animation history and call themselves animators.

All I really wanted to say was that CG animation was built on the legacy of tradiitonal animation. So, it is just an obvious "duh, of course" that people working on a CG animation project would look to traditional animation as a guide to their work. And I really think that the majority of the creative teams on these CGI films do look toward traditional animation with reverence and for inspiration. Or I don't know, maybe I just want to be an optimist because I'm tired of the endless cycle of pessimism that this thread always finds itself in.

[DisneyJedi]

If what that guy said was true about the budget for "Princess" actually being $65 million, why would Disney bother lying by saying it cost $105 million? My gueas is that Disney wanted to make it seem like more of a gamble.

I mean, I'd believe it really did cost $105 million if it was CGI heavy (like Tarzan or Treasure Planet). But TPatF didn't look that CG reliant.

[DisneyFan09]

But what ultimately happened in the end is that CGI has caused so much of our loss of artistic diversity.

For all your rants, you're actually right about it. CGI has lost it's artistic diversity. As The Three Commentears once said; Most CGI films start to look like each other. They should be more diverse.

[estefan]

But what ultimately happened in the end is that CGI has caused so much of our loss of artistic diversity.

For all your rants, you're actually right about it. CGI has lost it's artistic diversity. As The Three Commentears once said; Most CGI films start to look like each other. They should be more diverse.

I actually think we're already seeing CG animated films start to look different from each other. I think as CG animators have succeeded in replicating reality, there's been more experimentation. Just look at The Peanuts Movie and how they decided to go for a look that replicates the drawings. Or Genddy Tartakovsky going for a more rubbery and snappy approach to his characters in Hotel Transylvania (the film was originally going to have a more photorealistic design and animation style, but Tartakovsky only accepted the directing job if he could do something much closer to classic cartoon animation). The upcoming all-animated Smurfs movie also looks like it will be going for a look closer to the original comics rather than continuing the photo-realistic Smurfs of the hybrid features. The Book of Life was also made to look exactly like the concept art in the character designs and sets as Jorge Gutierrez expressed a sentiment similar to what a lot of people here have said, that he's always disappointed when he looks at the "Art of" Books and how different the designs look in the final product.

A good example is looking at DreamWorks's three big releases last year. All look distinct and different from each other, with unique character designs to the point where they don't even look like they came from the same studio.

[Tangled]

For all your rants, you're actually right about it. CGI has lost it's artistic diversity. As The Three Commentears once said; Most CGI films start to look like each other. They should be more diverse.

To be fair, you could also apply the same argument to hand-drawn animation. The big-eyed, musical, fairy tale Disney style is set in stone now. I blame that for part of the reason that hand-drawn crashed in the mid-2000s. People just associated 2D animation as musicals being for very young children. Disney attempted to erase this stigma with films like Atlantis and Treasure Planet, but they still were pumping out direct-to-DVD sequels that over-saturated the market and made hand-drawn animation look cheap and unappealing in comparison to the more adult-oriented stuff that Pixar or Dreamworks was pumping out.

TL;DR: Disney screwed themselves over by over-saturating the market with films that were too familiar and/or were poor in quality. CGI was a diverse medium that could appeal to people of all ages, so people turned to that instead.

Also:

To make their CGI characters look better, they have to hire traditional animators to draw over their models...instead of just making the movie traditionally hand drawn in the first place.

The first time I heard about this happening was with Glen Keane on Tangled. Regardless of what anyone says, I'm pretty sure that that film was CGI because Glen Keane actually wanted to experiment with making CGI look like 2D, with the pros of both (rather than an executive decision). CGI has better texturing than 2D, so they could actually animate Rapunzel's hair rather than a yellow blob. However, as a 2D animator, he still traced over the CGI animators' work so that the movement worked as if it was a hand-drawn film.

So choosing CGI over hand-drawn can be a creative decision.

Plus, did Moana even start off as hand-drawn? The first I'd heard about it was that it was going to be done in the faux-hand-dawn Paperman style. Again, a creative decision, but that's not happening anymore because the technique is "too primitive" (even though Feast looked great).

[DisneyFan09]

To be fair, you could also apply the same argument to hand-drawn animation. The big-eyed, musical, fairy tale Disney style is set in stone now. I blame that for part of the reason that hand-drawn crashed in the mid-2000s. People just associated 2D animation as musicals being for very young children. Disney attempted to erase this stigma with films like Atlantis and Treasure Planet, but they still were pumping out direct-to-DVD sequels that over-saturated the market and made hand-drawn animation look cheap and unappealing in comparison to the stuff the more adult-oriented stuff that Pixar or Dreamworks was pumping out.

TL;DR: Disney screwed themselves over by over-saturating the market with films that were too familiar and/or were poor in quality. CGI was a diverse medium that could appeal to people of all ages, so people turned to that instead.

Okay, fair enough.

[Sotiris]

If what that guy said was true about the budget for "Princess" actually being $65 million, why would Disney bother lying by saying it cost $105 million?

Disney doesn't release production budget numbers; Box Office Mojo (which is not a reliable source) was the one that published that number.

I'm pretty sure that that film was CGI because Glen Keane actually wanted to experiment with making CGI look like 2D, with the pros of both (rather than an executive decision).

Yes, but he didn't get to do that in the end though. He wanted a painterly look inspired by Fragonard but Lasseter deemed it "too distracting" and axed it.

CGI has better texturing than 2D, so they could actually animate Rapunzel's hair rather than a yellow blob.

Did Ariel's hair look like a red blob? Did Pocahontas' or Esmeralda's hair look like a black blob? There's no reason why Rapunzel's hair wouldn't look good in 2D animation. I find that an incredibly flimsy excuse perpetuated by Disney to justify making the movie in CG. Disney said that same thing about Frozen and Big Hero 6. That because of the ice and snow, Frozen had to be done in CG. That because of the action-sequences, BH6 had to be done in CG.

So choosing CGI over hand-drawn can be a creative decision.

More often that not, it's not though. And we also need to discuss about whose creative decision we're talking here. In the case of Tangled, the original director got replaced and his creative vision got scrapped.

Plus, did Moana even start off as hand-drawn? The first I'd heard about it was that it was going to be done in the faux-hand-dawn Paperman style. Again, a creative decision, but that's not happening anymore because the technique is "too primitive".

It actually started as a hand-drawn movie back in 2011. Then it become a hybrid, and then just CG. So, it wasn't a creative decision in this case either.