Hand-Drawn Animation Dead at Disney

[Marky_198]

According to Brad Bird (and most people's experience), high quality animation done by hand in America, has been defined by Disney in such a degree that it is difficult for people to imagine this kind of animation done with the same budget and quality in other genres. And this limitation could be one of the reasons why CG has taken over, because in hand-drawn all we have is either Disney, Disney clones or low-budget movies with less artistic talent.

I agree.

The level of craftmanship was so high that they can't even reach that anymore, even if they wanted to.

It really shows how special that kind of talent was.


As for the CG, it works wonderfully for backgrounds and special effects (Like in Aladdin, or Cinderella live action), but only if the lead characters are actually 2d animated or live action.

Even the animals in Cinderella live action look a bit robotic.

[ce1ticmoon]

GKIDS is giving some much-needed exposure to what looks to be another gem:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FP0lzeCJEs[/youtube]

[Sotiris]

If it helps improve it, they should use it, shouldn't they? And should they acknowledge it and give it due respect? Absolutely.

They aren't, though. While I support using every tool at one's disposal to achieve the best possible result, I find it incredibly contradictory and hypocritical of Disney to proclaim CG as the superior medium, refer to 2D animators as hammy actors, and not even allow them to attend meetings, only to later mine their talents and skills for the supposedly superior medium's benefit. If CG was indeed the superior medium, it wouldn't need 2D animation's help. The sad truth is that the very few 2D animators left at Disney are disrespected, unappreciated, and artistically exploited.

We know CG lends itself to being too rigid it's not some secret. Animators have said as much since Toy Story, and while it has gotten way better it's not going away any time soon if ever.

CG animators may have said that back in 1995 but they're certainly not saying that now. In fact, anyone who mentions any possible artistic limitation of CG animation gets labeled as either bitter or biased, hence why I think a CG animator making that comment is note-worthy.

Clark Spencer: A character like Nick takes one year from the initial design into the model, to test the rig, to start to move that character around, to put the fur on - Nick has two million hairs on him, all groomed -, to do all that research in terms of that fur, and then to put the clothes on top it, to create the simulation, and then to continue to go back and forth, it takes a year before the animators can actually start using that character...

Rich Moore: And that's after a long period of time of just researching fox fur, and what does it look like, and how does it reflect light and nature, and then designing strands of fox fur to cover the rig with. [...] The classic animators, the Nine Old Men, they could only approximate what fur looked like in 2D animation. It was a suggestion of what that is where this is taking it right down to the strand and making it look very realistic.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQzrLqchYk4

I never understood why using photorealism in animation is considered that important and viewed as an improvement. Why is having hyper-realistic textures and patterns inherently positive? How is depicting every single strand of hair and every blade of grass artistically beneficial? Animation is a representational art form; it's the illusion of life. It's not supposed to nor it needs to be a carbon copy of our material reality. Rich's comment suggests that 2D animation's "approximation" was a mere technical restriction of the past instead of the timeless artistic value that it is.

[Disney's Divinity]

Huge kudos to your entire post, Sotiris. I agree with all of it.

[ce1ticmoon]

They aren't, though. While I support using every tool at one's disposal to achieve the best possible result, I find it incredibly contradictory and hypocritical of Disney to proclaim CG as the superior medium, refer to 2D animators as hammy actors, and not even allow them to attend meetings, only to later mine their talents and skills for the supposedly superior medium's benefit. If CG was indeed the superior medium, it wouldn't need 2D animation's help. The sad truth is that the very few 2D animators left at Disney are disrespected, unappreciated, and artistically exploited.

I acknowledged that the 2D artists aren't getting their due credit in the post you responded to, so I definitely agree. And perhaps I was understating it a bit and didn't completely catch on to the criticism you were making in the original post (to be fair it was just a snide remark and only so much could be read into it), because I agree with what you are saying here 100%, and they definitely can't have it both ways. (Well, I guess they are having it both ways, but what I mean is they shouldn't.) It is pretty sad that they seemingly feel the need to disrespect the history and legacy of the studio (and 2D artists and the medium in general) to prop up what they are doing and achieving now.

I never understood why using photorealism in animation is considered that important and viewed as an improvement. Why is having hyper-realistic textures and patterns inherently positive? How is depicting every single strand of hair and every blade of grass artistically beneficial? Animation is a representational art form; it's the illusion of life. It's not supposed to nor it needs to be a carbon copy of our material reality. Rich's comment suggests that 2D animation's "approximation" was a mere technical restriction of the past instead of the timeless artistic value that it is.

Well, it is a technical achievement, so I can see why certain artists and animators would be interested in improving photorealism in CGI. And I wouldn't say it isn't positive, per se, and it could be artistically beneficial, depending on what it is you are trying achieve. But I agree with your argument, and like the other issue mentioned above, it's really unfortunate that there seems to be this need to suggest that there is an inherent inferiority in 2D animation compared to the achievements that they are making in CG animation.

And honestly, I can't and don't believe that every single one of these people that have been quoted throughout the course of this thread really believes that CG animation and the technical achievements made therein makes the medium a "superior" option to 2D. Either they are just trying really hard to convince themselves of this "fact" because they don't really have any other option to work in, or they just lack any sense of tact and thought when they say what they are saying, in their effort to promote and prop up their current work. I mean, a lot of them should be fans just as big as us in regards to this work they are seemingly putting down, shouldn't they?

[Sotiris]

The director of Long Way North, Rémi Chayé, talks about the difficulties in finding funds for a 2D animated feature in Europe. Also, he seems to share our sentiments when it comes to photorealism in animation.

Q: In your presentation at the Anima festival you mentioned it took three years to get enough investors on board to make the film. What made it so difficult?

Rémi Chayé: Having an original story with unknown creators didn’t help, but also European 2D animation as a whole is just a risky business. Sadly enough, lots of independent animated movies are commercial failures, because we have to fight against huge American marketing machines like Zootopia and Star Wars. You have this saying in America – “Winner takes all.” That’s what their marketing strategy is like. They do not only want to sell their own movies – they want to saturate the whole market. This kind of all-absorbing, aggressive marketing makes it hard for films like Long Way North to exist.

Q: Brew readers have been raving about Long Way North ever since the release of its concept trailer. Fans especially seem to love the film’s unusually spare sense of design.

Rémi Chayé: To me, drawing is about interpreting reality – it’s a way to look at a chair, to make the spectator interpret that chair in a way that says something. I think the style of Long Way North is a way to look at reality through light, shapes, and colors, evoking emotion and tickling the imagination.

Reproducing reality, with reflections and everything – it doesn’t really interest me. I don’t want to spend the budget on showcasing each of Sasha’s hairs in detail. The simple shape of her hair, combined with the rhythm the wind adds to it, contributes to the film’s poetry.

Source: http://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film ... 38035.html

[Sotiris]

Byron Howard rebuts the myth that CG animated features are made cheaper and faster than a 2D-animated ones. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. CG animation is significantly more expensive and time-consuming than 2D.

Q: What are the biggest pipeline differences between 2D animation and 3D animation?

Byron Howard: That’s a good question. I was a 2D animator for a long time before I worked in CG. It’s really interesting because a 2D animation project… Say you want a new character design, a character designer can sit down and in one afternoon do a sketch and then in the 2D days they could give that sketch to an animator and the animator could animate a scene with that character by the end of the week. CG animation is completely the opposite. It takes forever to build all these stuff upfront before we ever get to animate the film. For example, a character like Nick Wilde, from a finished concept drawing to the finished character actually moving around the screen is one year. It’s incredible. That’s going through dozens and dozens of people. That’s going through character designers and groomers that put the fur on, riggers that actually set up the rig in the character, and modelers… It’s incredibly complex which is why it takes so many people. That’s why we have 800 people working on these films. It’s completely the opposite. Back in the day, seeing CG films coming out I thought ‘Wow, that’s going to make it a lot easier and cheaper’ and it’s not at all. It’s way more expensive. It’s way more complicated.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9Yn7wTsMjs


It's really frustrating when people talk about 2D animation like it's some ancient relic of the past.

We wanted to present the movie in computer animation because we felt like at Disney we’ve never done that before. We have a great legacy of 2D-animated animal movies but why don’t we take what’s really cool and appealing about those and bring them into the 21st century.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHcYExJNERg

When I heard that Byron Howard was thinking of making a new kind of talking-animal movie I thought how great to take those classic, really appealing, Disney designs and translate it now intp the 21st century though computer animation and incredible technology that can now render animals to look like animals in the wild.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqsaccB1tho

[Mooky]

I never understood why using photorealism in animation is considered that important and viewed as an improvement. Why is having hyper-realistic textures and patterns inherently positive? How is depicting every single strand of hair and every blade of grass artistically beneficial?

But... but... how else am I, a human, supposed to develop an emotional connection to a talking rabbit if I don't see every strand of her fur or understand the severity of the eternal winter in Frozen if I don't see realistic snow and ice?

[Tangled]

The way I see it, CGI becoming more photorealistic is probably due to an overlap between CGI effects use in live action films and fully-CGI animated films. CGI effects in live-action films have been developed to be photorealistic to fit in with the actors and set, or else the film looks uncanny (just compare the CGI-use in Star Wars: Episode 1 to the CGI-use in Star Wars: Episode 7, for example). Naturally, as more technological progress is made so that CGI can fit in with live-action, studios that make fully-animated films end up sharing techniques with special effects studios. After all, sharing technology and research is easier and cheaper than creating something new. This overlap isn't new. Pixar only got off the ground after the early team did some primitive CGI work for live-action films in the 80s.

Still, I agree, it's kind of a weird thing to focus on for an animation film with an art style that's not photorealistic. There are CGI films like Happy Feet or The Lego Movie that use photorealism as an art style, but no Disney Animation film in the last 10 years has used photorealistic designs aside from textures. Nick and Judy are not designed to look exactly like a fox and a rabbit, but the realistic fur is still just like a fox and a rabbit's...because they have to use the technology to impress the executives, I guess. It frustrates me to no end how they deny directors the chance to use non-realistic textures except in short films. I'd love to see what Tangled would be like if it stayed completely like a painting, or what Moana would be like if it was animated like Paperman.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

It frustrates me to no end how they deny directors the chance to use non-realistic textures except in short films.

Maybe it has already been added in this thread, if so here it is again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1QC2KMJndw

Roger Rabbit was CGI, but had no fur made of countless hairs or anything.

The level of craftmanship was so high that they can't even reach that anymore, even if they wanted to.

Even the animals in Cinderella live action look a bit robotic.

I have not seen the live action version of Cinderella yet, didn't know they still used the animal characters.

While the animators got more experience with character animation and such, the full achievements of the first five Disney features were never repeated. Not that everything after that has been a decline, but there are becoming fewer animals who masters the old craftsmanship.

[Sotiris]

Lance Summers, who's the head of look development at WDAS, talks about the 2D vs CG debate.

Q: As someone who studied 3D animation you’ve probably met those 2D animation purists who feel that 3D lacks (insert something 2D animation has that 3D allegedly doesn’t). What would you say to those purists in regards to your craft?

Lance Summers: This is something that I sometimes tell students who are doing 2D animation. It’s a medium. If you know the principles of animation and you’re doing 2D, all you have to learn is the tech. It’s a different toolset. If I go to a studio that’s making a 2D film, all I have to do is change the way I work. It’s still all those principles of art and design, and that eye that you build up throughout the years is still there. You’re making something on screen and it’s got to look good — it’s all art in the end.

Source: http://www.scadconnector.com/2016/03/02/26150/

Q: What’s something that most people get wrong or don’t really understand about the field of animation?

Lance Summers: Something I heard earlier today is that there is a divide between 2D and 3D animation. The thing is, the art drives the tech. I think a lot of artists, they’re divided between 2D and 3D, but ultimately it comes down to having an eye and having to know what you want to put up on the screen. Even if you change mediums, you just to relearn the tech behind it or how you do it changes throughout life. If you want to be an artist, it’s your eye that’s really important, and pushing buttons doesn’t matter as much. You can relearn that anyways.

Source: http://nique.net/entertainment/2016/03/ ... e-summers/


David Stodolny, who's an animator at WDAS, asserts that mediums are just tools; it's all about the end goal, the performance.

A few months after graduating, Stodolny got his first job in the animation industry doing TV shows in Toronto. Stodolny explained that 2D animation was becoming less popular and decided to learn Computer Graphics on the job. “Based on my 2D reel that I put together in college, they saw that I could work with a character and make them move,” Stodolny said. “CG is just a tool that once you understand movement, it’s just about learning to do it on the computer.”

Source: http://thesheridansun.ca/blog/2016/03/1 ... -critters/


Director and animator David Feiss talks about whether 2D animation will ever make a comeback.

Q: Do you think we’ll ever see a mainstream return to traditional hand-drawn animation from the big studios?

David Feiss: Wow. Well, you know, Family Guy and The Simpsons are still all hand-drawn animation. They use a lot of technology, obviously, but it’s still hand-drawn. I don’t know. Personally, I always thought that I’d be a 2D animator and I’d never change and I’d always work on paper. But I draw on a Cintiq and use Photoshop and use my animation skills every day. The look of 2D in CG now is totally possible. I think that it’s just a great tool. Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon are still doing that, though. They have shows that are hand-drawn.

Source: http://geekdad.com/2016/03/qa-with-dire ... vid-feiss/


Indie 2D animator Harry Partridge talks about the future of 2D animation. He makes some good points.

Q: What’s your view on the 2D feature animation climate? Do you think it can make a successful comeback?

Harry Partridge: I don’t really see it making a big comeback. I know there’ll be pockets of resistance and I know there’ll be 2D theatrically-released animated movies for years to come, obviously a lot less than there were 15-20 years ago but there will still be made. I have heard a lot of people say, ‘It’s not the audiences that are making the decision, it’s the studios’ but I think the audiences do make a decision. I heard some kids today look at 2D cartoons as looking ‘weird’ or ‘old-fashioned’ or ‘flat’ or like ‘that’s dad’s thing’. I think to a lesser degree it has become the new black and white, certainly for young audiences, kids and families, people that aren’t really animation buffs. I think they look at something like Frozen and they look it like ‘Oh, the characters look real. They look like dolls that have come to life’. I think people see that as being higher in quality, and more modern, and more beautiful than 2D. I think 2D is, as far as commercial, mass audiences are concerned, an old hat now; it’s just an old thing that it’s going to have a hard time getting back into favor.

I want to add though… I don’t want to sound like I’m too down on 2D animation. Obviously, I love 2D animation. I think it’s funnier than 3D. I laugh more with 2D. I think you can get more in a drawing than you can with a 3D rig in terms of posing a character and stuff. Even if 2D is fading on the theatrical scène, it’s really alive online. You can make a 3D cartoon by yourself but it’s very difficult. You can make a 2D cartoon by yourself a lot easier. Obviously for the independents, for people like me, that’s the way to go. I think that’s how it’s going to stay alive. I think with comedy too. Who wants like 3D Rick and Morty? I don’t think that’s what the people want. I think for comedy and television, 2D would be alive for years to come. So, I don’t think 2D is going anywhere. But in terms of big, family movies that are trying to make beautiful, marketable, pretty things - not that there’s anything wrong with that - but for the people who do want to do that, I don’t think that 2D is going to come back any time soon.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S65XjLlSvig

[unprincess]

April & the Extraordinary World looks pretty neat! thank goodness for G-kids! Hope that means they will release it to dvd in the States, like they have other foreign releases.

the director of Feast, Patrick Osborne, has made a short for Google, called Pearl:

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/festivals/fe ... 38141.html

not sure if the pics in the article are stills from the short, the article says its CGI, but I hope he used a similar technique he used for Feast.

[Sotiris]

Andrew Millstein, the president of WDAS, talks about 2D animation's place at the studio. He asserts that because 2D animators do draw-overs on CG films that somehow means that 2D animation is still alive at Disney.

Whether animation might return from its technological present to the hand-drawn past is another matter, Millstein says. "I don't think it would ever be as black and white as that," he says. "I think that art and technology are woven into the fabric of the studio and you can see that. Yet, we have a legacy that draws on, and continues to draw on, our hand-drawn history."

In Zootopia, for example, there is a sensibility which comes from the studio's "2D" legacy. "We have hand-drawn artists, 2-D artists, who are actually working with our CG artists to help with the shape language and the appeal of the shapes, and the motion," he says.

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/mov ... nn2hn.html

[Disney's Divinity]

And of course they continue to frame a difference in medium as an old versus new debate.

I doubt the few hand-drawn animators they keep on even have as little involvement as they describe, since other things posted here make it sound as if the 3D animators don't listen to them (or allow them to speak) and see them as nuisances who don't know anything.

[unprincess]

Itd be nice if he'd name that one lone animator who does all the 2d work in the article. Im sure it would not be too hard to mention his name. If they even remember who he is.
He must be very lonely working at the studio, surrounded by all those CGI animators. I wonder if they let him eat at the same table with them during lunch.

[D82]

Aaron Blaise has posted a video explaining the animation process behind a shot from Beauty and the Beast. I found it very interesting. The amount of work needed for just a few seconds of screen time is impressive. And I said this before, but it always fascinates me how single drawings can come to life when they're put together in the hands of expert animators like him. It's like magic to me. He also talks a bit about the situation of hand-drawn animation at the end of the video.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTf61HV2rRc[/youtube]


There are lots of other videos and animation tutorials on his Youtube channel.

[Sotiris]

It'd be nice if he'd name that one lone animator who does all the 2D work. I'm sure it would not be too hard to mention his name. If they even remember who he is.

If we're talking about just draw-overs and not pencil tests, that animator would (mostly) be Mark Henn.

Tangled --> Glen Keane
Wreck-It Ralph --> Rich Moore
Frozen --> Mark Henn
Big Hero 6 --> Mark Henn
Zootopia --> Byron Howard
Moana --> Mark Henn
Ralph Breaks the Internet --> Mark Henn
Frozen 2 --> Mark Henn

[Sotiris]

Tony Bancroft recalls seeing Toy Story for the first time and the fears it elicited regarding the future of 2D animation.

As we ventured back to our desks to complete our final month of animation on The Lion King, I remember telling my friends that we had just witnessed the end of 2D animation. Toy Story was that kind of phenomenal breakthrough that I thought, “who will want to see our flat films when they can see stuff like that?”. It took about 5 more years after the release of Toy Story but eventually the 2D “traditional animation” division at Disney dissolved into nothing. As excited as I was about the breakthrough in animation that Toy Story represented it was also a sad realization that an era was ending in feature animation at Disney.

Source: http://www.fumettologica.it/2015/11/ann ... y-story/2/

[Sotiris]

It seems that rugby and hand-drawn animation go hand in hand! After last year's commercial to promote rugby sponsorship, now there's a commercial about a rugby tournament.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPOOMb6_hJA[/youtube]

[unprincess]

cool! that had a very late 80's/early 90's weekday afternoon action show feel (with a slightly bigger animation budget.)