Hand-Drawn Animation Dead at Disney

[Sotiris]

Here we go again! So far we've been told that Tangled had to be done in CG because of the hair, Frozen because of the ice and snow, Big Hero 6 because of the action sequences, and now Moana because of the ocean.

Musker and Clements are primarily hand-illustrators; this is their first movie doing nearly everything via computer graphics (CG). “The story’s visual elements like the ocean benefited more from CG instead of a two-dimensional technique,” says Musker. “We’re really hoping the audience can see how rich the CG is in the film.”

Source: http://www.honolulumagazine.com/Honolul ... New-Moana/

[Semaj]

So Frozen could've been a hybrid if the option was presented, right?

[estefan]

Here we go again! So far we've been told that Tangled had to be done in CG because of the hair, Frozen because of the ice and snow, Big Hero 6 because of the action sequences, and now Moana because of the ocean.

Musker and Clements are primarily hand-illustrators; this is their first movie doing nearly everything via computer graphics (CG). “The story’s visual elements like the ocean benefited more from CG instead of a two-dimensional technique,” says Musker. “We’re really hoping the audience can see how rich the CG is in the film.”

Source: http://www.honolulumagazine.com/Honolul ... New-Moana/

It's really weird hearing the directors of The Little Mermaid say this. That movie used water and waves exceptionally well without the use of computer animation.

[Disney's Divinity]

M&C are ultimately employees, and they're only saying what their company wants to hear. Does anyone think that, after TPTB said no when they wanted to do hand-drawn, they'd let them M&C go out there and say something such as, "The animation of the ocean in Moana isn't as striking as in TLM, but it's the best we could do..." Besides, everyone always talks up a movie before it's released.

I seriously doubt the ocean will be more impressive here than in The Little Mermaid or Pinocchio.

[blackcauldron85]

It's really weird hearing the directors of The Little Mermaid say this. That movie used water and waves exceptionally well without the use of computer animation.

Whenever I watch the movie, particularly the above-water-but-still-in-the-water scenes (Eric's ship, etc.), I always think to myself how impressive the water looks.

*edit*

We posted at the same time!

I seriously doubt the ocean will be more impressive here than in The Little Mermaid or Pinocchio.

That's the thing...Pinocchio & The Little Mermaid have such impressive water animation... I mean, not that Finding Nemo doesn't, but Disney water hand-drawn animation is awe-inspiring. I'm sure Moana will look amazing, and I'm not knocking CGI, but just knowing that someone had to draw each frame of beautiful water... it does something to my soul!

[Sotiris]

It's really weird hearing the directors of The Little Mermaid say this. That movie used water and waves exceptionally well without the use of computer animation.

It's not really coming from them. It's the same PR spin they make every director at Disney say to justify why Disney isn't making 2D movies any more; that they supposedly choose the medium based on how suitable it is for the story.

[Warm Regards]

Here we go again! So far we've been told that Tangled had to be done in CG because of the hair, Frozen because of the ice and snow, Big Hero 6 because of the action sequences, and now Moana because of the ocean.

Musker and Clements are primarily hand-illustrators; this is their first movie doing nearly everything via computer graphics (CG). “The story’s visual elements like the ocean benefited more from CG instead of a two-dimensional technique,” says Musker. “We’re really hoping the audience can see how rich the CG is in the film.”

Source: http://www.honolulumagazine.com/Honolul ... New-Moana/

You honestly took the words right out of my mouth, Sotiris.

I think they'll always find a rather arbitrary reason to make a movie CG. Yes, I know how important hair is in Rapunzel, or how much snow matters in The Snow Queen.

But the implication that CG is the superior option because of how important an element is (e.g., hair, snow, action scenes, the ocean), that's just ludicrous.

Also, I kinda question if an audience can tell how "rich" the CG is when that's been the majority of animated film output these day. (Exceptions such The Peanuts Movie [visually speaking] noted.)

It's like saying, "We made a cheeseburger!" in a food market dominated by hamburgers. I have no doubt Disney will produce a pretty picture. But they aren't doing anything that revolutionary.

[Sotiris]

John Musker also said they went with CG because of - wait for it - the native people's facial structure! This is just so ridiculous (and possibly racist).

While “Moana” is the sixth Disney film by the creative minds of Musker and Clements, it is their first feature that is entirely computer-generated, as opposed to hand-drawn animation. Because of its three-dimensional characteristic, computer-generated animation produces a "sculpted" look, according to Musker. This was one of the deciding factors for the directors to make the switch to computer generation.

"Dare I say, people's faces [in the South Pacific] have such a beautiful sculpturing – the way the planes work on the face, it feels sculptural," Musker said. "That aspect seems to lend itself to [computer generation].”

Musker said the environment in the South Pacific was also best modeled via computer generation.

“One of the things we learned when we were in Samoa was that in the islands there wasn't necessarily indigenous drawing or painting traditions,” Musker said. “But when you look at the sculptures of the islands themselves. Mo'orea, the skyline looks like a sculpture."

Source: http://www.kaleo.org/features/moana-a-l ... 6c6e7.html

“We looked around the island of Mo’orea and studied the sculpted rocks that worked both graphically and dimensionally,” Musker said. “Also, people’s faces and bodies were carved, so the idea of doing it in CG this way became clear. Jim Henn, who understands the transitional drawing between 2D and CG, worked this out.”

Source: http://www.indiewire.com/2016/09/moana- ... 201723872/

[Kyle]

Please, there's nothing racist about observing differences how people look. Its what artists are supposed to do.

[jazzflower92]

I don't see anything racist about this. They are trying to correctly depict people of color accurately which is good.

[Disney's Divinity]

I don't think it's racist, but there are plenty of white people who have faces that are "sculptural"....

[Sotiris]

Please, there's nothing racist about observing differences how people look. Its what artists are supposed to do.

There might be a racist implication in the statement that Pacific Islanders' faces are so different and "sculptural" they can't be done in 2D and need a whole different medium to capture their likeness. Of course, this is utter nonsense especially since they directed The Princess and the Frog just fine in 2D. It was just a stupid thing to say in a desperate attempt to justify why they made the movie in CG.

I don't think it's racist, but there are plenty of white people who have faces that are "sculptural".

All people have sculptural faces because we all exist in three dimensions. Honestly, his comment made no sense.

[Kyle]

Again though, you're putting words in people's mouths in the name of "reading between the lines". Just because he thinks something lends itself to something doesn't mean it has to exclude another. John didn't say it couldn't be done in 2D, that was you. And being sculptural doesn't just mean to exist in 3 dimensions, it means they have chiseled distinct features.

And yeah white people can have these features too, of course. but this isn't much different than making the observation than black people tend to have wider noses, or Asians have a pale complexion. There will be exceptions but different races/cultures have their own look, its not racist to point these things out.

[Disney's Divinity]

There will be exceptions but different races/cultures have their own look, its not racist to point these things out.

Well, that's good to know because I didn't say it was.

And neither did Sotiris, btw, he did say "possibly." But of course lambast when you have the chance.

[Sotiris]

Just because he thinks something lends itself to something doesn't mean it has to exclude another.

But it does mean it can't be done just as well which I don't believe is true.

And being sculptural doesn't just mean to exist in 3 dimensions, it means they have chiseled distinct features.

"Chiseled", "distinct", "sculptural" are all vague and ambiguous descriptors that can mean just about anything. It's not a specific trait or quality you can associate with a particular group of people. It is different from the examples you mentioned.

Well, that's good to know because I didn't say it was. And neither did Sotiris, btw, he did say "possibly."

I know. Go figure. I didn't expect that passing comment would cause such a strong reaction.

[Kyle]

Yes its a more abstract concept but what distinct means in this case is that the features are more angular. That's what john seems to mean by "planes of the face".

[unprincess]

I dont think there's anything racist about his comment, but I do think its completely absurd! he's literally saying that Polynesians look better in CGI than hand drawn? Wha?! its so absurd that I dont believe he actually believes this, I think that this is him yet again throwing another subtle hint at how much he resents his being forced to use CGI by coming up with another ridiculous reason for why CGI is better in addition to the water one, which at least makes more sense since water is technically a special effect element and it probably is at least easier to do in CGI.

Next I expect him to say CGI was needed b/c of all the fish, b/c dont you know fish look better in CGI! (while he winks at the camera.)

[ce1ticmoon]

It's not really coming from them. It's the same PR spin they make every director at Disney say to justify why Disney isn't making 2D movies any more; that they supposedly choose the medium based on how suitable it is for the story.

I definitely don't buy that quote at all, but it is weird that they still even need to justify the use of CGI at this point. To the general audience, animated features being in CGI is a given (even coming from Disney), and while I'm sure a properly made hand-drawn film would actually have the potential to be just as successful as CGI films, they really just aren't on most peoples' radars anymore. The only people who truly care are a select few, like those at this forum, who don't even buy those quotes anyway! Why even call attention to it, when they are so far into being a CG-based studio? I do find it interesting that they still feel the need to mention something like that for each film.

[Disney's Divinity]

and while I'm sure a properly made hand-drawn film would actually have the potential to be just as successful as CGI films, they really just aren't on most peoples' radars anymore. The only people who truly care are a select few,

That's because animated films are considered just kid fodder by most people, so they really don't care if the movie is 3D, stop-motion, hand-drawn, bad, good, stupid, funny, dramatic, who the directors are, who the voice actors are--it's a kid's movie, that's all they think about it.

If 3D films generally perform better on principle, it's because people are fascinated by what computers can do--and this goes for live-action films with extensive special effects, particularly superhero and disaster films. People always want to see how much the effects improve as time goes by. Nevermind the fact that it makes older films hard to watch once the effects have improved to a great degree.

[D82]

I didn’t know where I should post it, but here’s a short video with Eric Goldberg doing a special drawing to celebrate Walt Disney Animation Studios 92nd anniversary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hq6z__g1Wrw

It always fascinates me watching an animator draw, and Eric Goldberg is one the best in my opinion.