Hand-Drawn Animation Dead at Disney

[tweeb²]

I agree. I think in so much time we'll end up at a place where not as many animated films are produced by Hollywood for a while and a number of animation studio might shut down or shrink to near non-existence. History has an interesting way of repeating itself. However, this might not be a bad thing. Hopefully if/when such a time period comes, it will help to recapture that spark of creativity that in the past lead to things like computer animation, stop-motion animation and even hand drawn animation itself. It could be an exciting time actually!

It may also have some great opportunity to have some interesting kickstarter/patreon/indiegogo, "us supporting the creators" scene, something like that (maybe a webpage like youtube or a youtube premium dedicated to it?) and have a very niche audience devoted to it, kinda like E-Sports are now, but way smaller.

In the past, it was worse because being in the indie circles in the 70s and 80s meant nobody saw your movie, and if you where waaay lucky, your movie became this weird cult hit and now is highly regarded, and that serves you to gain momentum and get big. Kinda what happened with Ralph Baskhi. Now we have the internet so we can build up something like an animation community, kinda what we have here, so we all get to discover the latest animated 2D movie and watch it on stream, or gather on dedicated cinemas.

Getting smaller may indeed be better than the bloated thing we have now.

I also have like this weird wish, where I really, really really want the "old guard", you know, Glenn Keane, Eric Goldberd, Richard Williams, Andreas Deja, everyone so they can gather together an make like a "swan song" kind of movie, something that can make them say "yeah, we are masters of the craft, you made great mistake throwing us away like trash" etc.

My fear is that they get older and older and we may never get to see something that great, even if if only two of them, heck one of them will get the chance to do something like that. hopefully Don Bluth and Baskhi crowdfunding attempts make others try to do the same.

[milojthatch]

I agree. I think in so much time we'll end up at a place where not as many animated films are produced by Hollywood for a while and a number of animation studio might shut down or shrink to near non-existence. History has an interesting way of repeating itself. However, this might not be a bad thing. Hopefully if/when such a time period comes, it will help to recapture that spark of creativity that in the past lead to things like computer animation, stop-motion animation and even hand drawn animation itself. It could be an exciting time actually!

It may also have some great opportunity to have some interesting kickstarter/patreon/indiegogo, "us supporting the creators" scene, something like that (maybe a webpage like youtube or a youtube premium dedicated to it?) and have a very niche audience devoted to it, kinda like E-Sports are now, but way smaller.

In the past, it was worse because being in the indie circles in the 70s and 80s meant nobody saw your movie, and if you where waaay lucky, your movie became this weird cult hit and now is highly regarded, and that serves you to gain momentum and get big. Kinda what happened with Ralph Baskhi. Now we have the internet so we can build up something like an animation community, kinda what we have here, so we all get to discover the latest animated 2D movie and watch it on stream, or gather on dedicated cinemas.

Getting smaller may indeed be better than the bloatd thing we have now.

I also have like this weird wish, where I really, really really want the "old guard", you know, Glenn Keane, Eric Goldberd, Richard Willas, Andreas Deja, everyone so they can gather together an make like a "swan song" kind of movie, something that can make them say "yeah, we are masters of the craft, you made great mistake throwing us away like trash" etc.

My fear is that they get older and older and we may never get to see something that great, even if if only two of them, heck one of them will get the chance to do something like that. hopefully Don Bluth and Baskhi crowdfunding attempts make others try to do the same.

I agree, for the foreseeable future, crowdfunding is how 2D animated films will get financed in the US. I wish Don Bluth well and would love to see him make this last movie. My only issue is I kind of feel how is doing it is kind of lame. At first I thought he was trying to raise all the funds to make his film on his own. However since it would seem that he's just been looking for money to make a Pitch Presentation and shop the idea around to the major studios. I really hope that is not the case as I have a hard time seeing it get made in that instance. He should do it himself sans Hollywood.

As for Disney Animators, there are some using crowdfunding to make new 2D projects. James Lopez comes to mind right off the bat. In fact Iv'e talked with him in person and besides being a really nice guy, he has a very clear idea of what he wants to do. His Hullabaloo looks like a lot of fun!

[Disney Duster]

I hope Don Bluth gets that Dragon's Lair movie made! What a treat that would be!

[JTurner]

I hope Don Bluth gets that Dragon's Lair movie made! What a treat that would be!

From the looks of it, it might.

[Sotiris]

New interviews with Don Bluth and Gary Goldman. They talk about ideas for the movie, their plans for production and distribution, and the future of 2D animation.

Articles

Dragon's Lair: An interview with Don Bluth and Gary Goldman
http://blogs.indiewire.com/animationsco ... n-20151218

Dragon's Lair Movie Won't Depict "Sexualized" Version of Princess Daphne
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/dragon ... 0-6433325/

Upcoming ‘Dragon’s Lair’ Film Seeks to Rekindle Lost Secrets of Walt Disney
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1933558 ... lt-disney/

Interview: Don Bluth and Gary Goldman on Bringing Dragon's Lair to the Big Screen
http://www.usgamer.net/articles/intervi ... agons-lair

Don Bluth and Gary Goldman Part One – Leaving Disney
http://www.skwigly.co.uk/don-bluth-and- ... ng-disney/

Don Bluth and Gary Goldman Part Two – Long Live 2D!
http://www.skwigly.co.uk/don-bluth-and- ... g-live-2d/

Don Bluth And Gary Goldman Part Three – Working in Ireland
http://www.skwigly.co.uk/don-bluth-and- ... n-ireland/

Don Bluth and Gary Goldman battle to resurrect hand-drawn animation with Dragon’s Lair: The Movie
http://www.ew.com/article/2016/01/15/dragons-lair-movie

Dragon's Lair video game set to be a feature film
http://www.12news.com/story/news/local/ ... /78714198/

GR+ Live: Meet the creators of Dragon's Lair, An American Tail and more
http://www.gamesradar.com/gr-live-meet- ... -and-more/

Shut Up and Talk – Don Bluth and Gary Goldman
http://channelawesome.com/shut-up-and-t ... y-goldman/

Don Bluth: Bringing Back Hand-Drawn Animation
http://lomabeat.com/2016/09/don-bluth-b ... animation/

Dragon's Lair creative team goes in depth on their big prequel movie plans
https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/dragons-l ... ovie-plans


Podcasts

Animation Podcast #32 – Bringing Back 2D Animation with Don Bluth and Gary Goldman
http://taughtbyapro.com/podcast-32-brin ... y-goldman/

Animation Addicts 110: Don Bluth & Gary Goldman Interview about ‘Dragon’s Lair: The Movie’
http://www.rotoscopers.com/2015/12/08/a ... -campaign/

Interview with Don Bluth: Secret of NIMH, Dragon’s Lair, and the Traditional Animation Comeback
http://www.rubberonion.com/podcast/inte ... dcast-115/

Skwigly Podcast: Don Bluth & Gary Goldman
http://www.skwigly.co.uk/skwigly-podcast-bluth-goldman/

[JTurner]

New interview with Don Bluth and Gary Goldman. They talk about ideas for the movie, their plans for production and distribution, and the future of 2D animation.

DRAGON’S LAIR: An interview with Don Bluth and Gary Goldman
http://blogs.indiewire.com/animationsco ... n-20151218

Oh yeah, this is a GREAT article. Definitely worth the read if you haven't already.

[Maria_Potter]

"DB: [...] When you move too close to live action, now everything is shaded and now we put skin that has pores in it on all of the characters. Why not just hire an actor?"

^THIS! I really never understood why they're trying so hard to make animation look as real as possible, since the whole point of it is to look realistic, and yet unreal. Soon they will reach the point when animated characters will look exactly like real humans... and then what?

[DisneyJedi]

"DB: [...] When you move too close to live action, now everything is shaded and now we put skin that has pores in it on all of the characters. Why not just hire an actor?"

^THIS! I really never understood why they're trying so hard to make animation look as real as possible, since the whole point of it is to look realistic, and yet unreal. Soon they will reach the point when animated characters will look exactly like real humans... and then what?

They do, it's called "motion-capture."

[Kyle]

Even the best motion capture doesn't look exactly like the real deal. Not yet.

[unprincess]

James Lopez is gonna work on Dragons Lair? thats perfect!

does anyone else think Princess Daphne looks like a chicken?

[Disney's Divinity]

Even the best motion capture doesn't look exactly like the real deal. Not yet.

Yeah, I'm looking forward to them re-creating a human body that looks completely real. Those are such a rare sight.

[milojthatch]

^THIS! I really never understood why they're trying so hard to make animation look as real as possible, since the whole point of it is to look realistic, and yet unreal. Soon they will reach the point when animated characters will look exactly like real humans... and then what?

They do, it's called "motion-capture."

Motion capture has it's place, but I'd hate to start seeing a sea of "animated" films that were nothing but motion capture. In fact the few that have been made don't really excite me. Unless it's for special effects in a live-action film, I say save your money on motion capture and just hire real actors. Let's keep animation looking like animation.

[Semaj]

It seems like Don Bluth is (once again) gonna have to teach Disney a lesson.

[Sotiris]

Brendan Hay, executive producer of "Dawn of the Croods", maintains that 2D animation is better suited for TV than CG.

From a practical standpoint, for a TV schedule, it's a lot easier to do everything you want to do in 2D versus in CG. CG requires so much more work to rig and build assets. Part of our effort is we wanted to build this town, this suburb, around the Croods. We needed an instant Springfield, and that would have been very difficult to build quickly in CG. To give them a fully flushed out world, we chose 2D.

Source: http://www.awn.com/animationworld/dream ... es-netflix

Being a TV series, it’s a lot easier for us in terms of designs and assets and everything to be a 2-D show just because you can build out a world. I worked on CG shows before and it was like you can get one new background every other episode or you can get one new character every week. It takes a lot longer to build out a world. With that in mind, 2D seemed like the best option as was using the cave-wall sequence from the feature as our starting off point. The other thing we wanted to do differently was the backgrounds. We wanted something that looked really vibrant and fresh. We’re thinking this is when the world was brand new, even before the feature, so it should be a relatively lush and colorful place.

Source: http://www.animationmagazine.net/top-st ... ix-series/

Early on, we weighed the pros and cons of 2D and CG, but opted for 2D for two reasons. One is that we wanted Dawn of The Croods to be cartoonish. On a feature budget schedule, you can make great squash and stretch in CG, but it’s tougher for television. The other is that, since both our show and the feature will live side by side on Netflix, we wanted viewers to know right away which Croods they are watching.

Source: http://www.cartoonbrew.com/internet-tel ... 25791.html

[Sotiris]

Andreas Deja talks about the future of 2D animation and how CG could help the 2D style reinvent itself.

When people ask me “Is 2D animation dead?” I reply “Well, yeah. It’s dormant”. I think that would be fair to say. Feature animation as a 2D art form is pretty dormant now but who knows what’s going to happen in the future. One hit from Disney or an outside company to get people’s attention and it could be back in full swing. You never know. I was just at the CTN Expo in Burbank – an annual animation expo – and there are people from all over the world who came to talk to 2D artists. There is so much love out there for drawn animation. People really want it. It just has to be the right one. The right story, with maybe a visually fresh approach, and you can get people interested in that medium again. Absolutely.

I actually had high hopes with CG coming in and possibly helping the 2D style change and evolve. They did this in a stunning way as a short film. A short Disney did a while ago called Lorenzo. That is the most beautiful hybrid of 2D and CG animation to date. It hasn’t stepped up from that. It was all animated by hand. After it was all hand-drawn, and the motion was worked out, and the timing and staging and all that, rather than doing it with the usual cel-painted look with flat paint, they created a program where the color shapes look like they were done with very rough brushstrokes. The backgrounds were just brushstrokes. There was a street scene of a house, a window, a door and a lamppost on the side. It was almost abstract. It was still a CG environment but because it was so rough, you wouldn’t think it would work in 3D space yet when the camera moved the perspective changed and it gave you this “Ah! I didn’t see that coming!” impression. It was just a beautiful combination of 2D and CG.

This came at a time where Pixar hadn’t joined Disney yet. They were still separate out there. John Lasseter got a print of it and he sent out an email to all of Pixar that said “You guys, in the theater downstairs we’re going to run this little film from Disney all day and everyone must go and see this because it seems like a new door has opened where animation can go”. I was so encouraged by that because it was exactly the way I saw it. You could certainly apply that idea to a feature film. Not the same look but the idea to take pencil drawings and just make them look like something else like watercolor or oil painting while maintaining the integrity of that richful motion that 2D gives you. But then the film was forgotten. It’s not really relevant at this point which really saddens me. Take a style like that or a brand new style and just combine it with a commercial story with rich characters, a good sense of humor and all that and you really have something stunning. It just takes somebody willing to take that risk.

Q: Do you think we’ll ever see another hand-drawn feature from Disney?

Andreas Deja: I wish I could answer that. I really can’t answer that. If they want to do one, they better get on with it because if you do it in ten years maybe my generation won't be able to do it anymore. It would have to be just younger people who are inexperienced. It’s still doable to do a quality hand-drawn feature now. You would have enough senior people joined by some newcomers who could really pull it off. But they shouldn’t think about it for too long is my advice.

Source: http://geekdad.com/2015/12/gbbp-43-andreas-deja/

[milojthatch]

Andreas Deja talks about the future of 2D animation and how CG could help the 2D style reinvent itself.

I actually had high hopes with CG coming in and possibly helping the 2D style change and evolve. They did this in a stunning way as a short film. A short Disney did a while ago called Lorenzo. That is the most beautiful hybrid of 2D and CG animation to date. It hasn’t stepped up from that. It was all animated by hand. After it was all hand-drawn, and the motion was worked out, and the timing and staging and all that, rather than doing it with the usual cel-painted look with flat paint, they created a program where the color shapes look like they were done with very rough brushstrokes. The backgrounds were just brushstrokes. There was a street scene of a house, a window, a door and a lamppost on the side. It was almost abstract. It was still a CG environment but because it was so rough, you wouldn’t think it would work in 3D space yet when the camera moved the perspective changed and it gave you this “Ah! I didn’t see that coming!” impression. It was just a beautiful combination of 2D and CG.

Source: http://geekdad.com/2015/12/gbbp-43-andreas-deja/

This reminds me of I think it was Tangled and how it was going to be CG but look like that French oil painting. You know what? I really wanted to see that movie. Shame it was never made. There is so much that CG could do if it was allowed to. Very sad the powers that be are holding it back.

[DisneyFan09]

This reminds me of I think it was Tangled and how it was going to be CG but look like that French oil painting. You know what? I really wanted to see that movie. Shame it was never made. There is so much that CG could do if it was allowed to. Very sad the powers that be are holding it back.

Agreed. It would've at least been interesting and not just another generic CGI movie.

[disneyprincess11]

Doug Walker interviews Don Bluth and Gary Goldman about 2D animation vs. CGI animation

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

[Rumpelstiltskin]

John Lasseter said that it's the story that counts, not the technology they use. Then again, there are those who say that it's not the joke itself that is funny or not, but how you tell it. And in comic books, art is more important than story because crappy drawings can ruin a good story, while great art can improve a bad story. Just my opinion.

But the reason why people is interested in the technology is obvious. When you are just animating with a pencil, it all depends on skills, talent, experience and craftsmanship. The pencil does everything that artist wants. Which is why there is usually not much focus on that particular part of the production process in movie after movie. But in the pre-Xerox days, the Disney studio used more than just a pencil. They also used airbrush and other techniques to make their movies, and if internet had been available then, there would be discussion boards where posters were talking about the animation technology each movie used.

Computer animation is different from animating with a pencil and other methods from the past. A computer is a much more complicated tool than a pencil, and so you must make sure it does what you want it to do.

In the early days of computer animation, this was impossible. No matter how talented and skilled you were, the animation would still look stiff and rigid. And human skin would still look like plastic.

What people are interested to know is; are all of these limitations in computer animations gone by now, or are there still something that hand-drawn animation does better? Are all the rendering problems regarding skin and other surfaces solved (no matter if you want to look cartoony or photorealistic)?

I liked the technique used in Paperman, but not and then, there was still something about the animation that gave it away as CGI. But since this was an experimental short with a limited crew, compared to a huge feature, it is possible that the things that gave it away was the result of shortcuts like procedural animation. Seeing the trailer of the new CGI Popeye trailer, which looks like it's not going to happen after all, it looks like it can be done properly if they use human skills where these are still superior to the computer, like character animation.

Then there is Glen Keane, who are interested to see what computer can do for hand-drawn animation instead of the other way around. There are still obstacles here, and still problems to be solved. He often says that traditional animation looks the way it does because of its limitations, which is what computers could help remove. Which is great, as long as it still looks like it was made by hand. Using lines as the dominant factor instead of colors, light, shadows and texture as in CGI is a form of minimalism that gives a whole different visual experience.

As long as there are problems to be solved, people will still be interested in the technology. In The Good Dinosaur, they came up with the most realistic clouds used on a CGI movie so far, but those are challenges where the goal is to bring elements from the real world into the animation, not elements from traditional animation, and is therefore not the same. Even if it is still very interesting and makes you wonder what other challenges they face. While methods can be simplified and processes more streamlined, there are probably a limit for how many problems you have to solve. Once you have full control of light, clouds, water, fire, smoke and so on, everything from that point will just be improvements of what is already there.

And a little off-topic. I saw an interview on youtube with Ed Catmull recently, and he said the animation crew on a computer animated movie today was somewhere between 300 and 400 people (if my memory is correct), but that he hoped to some day bring it down to about 100 (again, if my memory is correct). If anyone knows what interview this is, please let me know. I seem to have lost it and would like to know what is considered an ideal number of animators on a movie (this number could of course be even lower on a stop motion film).

[ce1ticmoon]

This French film looks quite promising, and will be getting a US release via Shout! Factory.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udtT4pVcP6Q[/youtube]