DVDizzy Forum

Yay for CGI

I really dislike the modern 2D Disney look. It's half CGI anyway, and it's blurtingly obvious. The attempt to hide the CGI just makes it look cheap.

DisneyJedi wrote:How completely biased. Just because Tangled was gorgeous and in CG shouldn't guarantee the same will be said for Snow Queen. And I'm well aware that it's not coming out for another few years, but until it does come out, we'll never know!

And by the way, I loved Tangled and all, but come frickin' on, Disney! Stop screwing yourself and your animators over!!!

^^This

But, the good news is there's a hand-drawn movie in the works. I think Clements and Musker are working on it, so don't worry.

Victurtle wrote:Yay for CGI

I really dislike the modern 2D Disney look. It's half CGI anyway, and it's blurtingly obvious. The attempt to hide the CGI just makes it look cheap.

They could just do the 2D well like they did back in The Lion King or Sleeping Beauty days...I think that would be best...

If public perception is that hand drawn looks dated, it doesn't matter how well drawn it is - it will still be perceived as dated. Unfortunately, the U.S.' psyche has been overloaded with the finely tuned, flashiness of Blue Sky, Pixar, DreamWorks, et cetera's CGI.

I wish we lived in Japan, where hand drawn is still just as successful as CGI.

Confirmation that Snow Queen will be in CGI:

July 16, 2011

Steve Hulett wrote:Snow Queen was originally in development as a hand-drawn feature, but no more.

Source: http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... derby.html

Disney's Divinity wrote:

SWillie! wrote: Because of Tangled. And since Tangled is CG, and gorgeous, that is what Snow Queen should be done in.

Because there haven't been any gorgeous 2D films.

And it's not so much what it "should" be done in, but what it "will" be done in. But I guess this'll be like with Rapunzel, and everyone'll pretend this movie didn't begin as 2D and that the change to 3D was an organic decision. Like Neal said, it's a business decision and whether or not it would be best in 2D or CG has nothing to do with it.

Tell me... why can't it be both? Just because it's a business decision means that it can't also be the "right" decision? The decision that "should" be made? I never made any claims that changing it to CG wasn't a business decision. Obviously, it was. And it was the right one. Tangled was gorgeous. Many Pixar animators admitted that they had never seen human computer animation so well done. Which means that Disney is now back on track being the studio that pushes boundaries with animation. If they didn't continue to build on the success, both financially and artistically, that they had with Tangled, then they would once again fall behind.

Business and art are not always enemies, as so many of you seem determined to believe. Just as many executives are excited to do the movie in CG, there are also many artists who are very excited to do the movie in CG. The business people are not forcing CG down the artists throats - the majority of the artists at Disney probably WANT to do the film in CG, because it is something new, something they want to explore further. There are many artists there, such as Glen Keane and Randy Noble, who are open to working on both hand drawn and CG films. There are only a handful of people like Andreas Deja who refuse to move into CG whatsoever. While that's his decision, he's making it knowing full well that if he does not, the future of the animation industry will leave him behind.

As someone who would call themselves a "traditional animation fanboy" I'm getting really sick and tired of the way some of you see CG like it is literally the devil himself rising at Disney.

Victurtle wrote:Yay for CGI

I really dislike the modern 2D Disney look. It's half CGI anyway, and it's blurtingly obvious. The attempt to hide the CGI just makes it look cheap.

Maybe brother bear and anything before it but not princess and the frog. They deliberately avoided CG to keep the budget down and to contrast the completely CG films coming out of them and Pixar. And I haven't seen pooh but I dont think that has any either. So I'm not sure what your talking about.

Kyle wrote:

Victurtle wrote:Yay for CGI

I really dislike the modern 2D Disney look. It's half CGI anyway, and it's blurtingly obvious. The attempt to hide the CGI just makes it look cheap.

Maybe brother bear and anything before it but not princess and the frog. They deliberately avoided CG to keep the budget down and to contrast the completely CG films coming out of them and Pixar. And I haven't seen pooh but I dont think that has any either. So I'm not sure what your talking about.

There are very obvious CG parts of Princess and the Frog. Specifically background movements.

SWillie! wrote:Business and art are not always enemies, as so many of you seem determined to believe.

SWillie! wrote:There are very obvious CG parts of Princess and the Frog. Specifically background movements.

Are you talking about simulated multiplane shots? If not can you be more specific?

Disney's Divinity wrote:Because there haven't been any gorgeous 2D films.

And it's not so much what it "should" be done in, but what it "will" be done in. But I guess this'll be like with Rapunzel, and everyone'll pretend this movie didn't begin as 2D and that the change to 3D was an organic decision. Like Neal said, it's a business decision and whether or not it would be best in 2D or CG has nothing to do with it.

SWillie! wrote:Tell me... why can't it be both? Just because it's a business decision means that it can't also be the "right" decision?

I can accept that it was "right" decision from a financial/business perspective but calling this the "right" decision from an artistic/creative perspective is quite arbitrary.

SWillie! wrote:I never made any claims that changing it to CG wasn't a business decision. Obviously, it was. And it was the right one. Tangled was gorgeous. Many Pixar animators admitted that they had never seen human computer animation so well done. Which means that Disney is now back on track being the studio that pushes boundaries with animation. If they didn't continue to build on the success, both financially and artistically, that they had with Tangled, then they would once again fall behind.

That's ridiculous. Most projects at WDAS are CGI. They did not need to turn Snow Queen too into a CGI film to "push boundaries with CG animation". They have so many projects to do that with. And what about exploring the potential and the styles of hand-drawn animation? How about "pushing the boundaries" of that medium? Suddenly, it doesn't matter to explore the hand-drawn medium anymore but only the CG because that's the one that sells? I don't see any artistic justification in that.

SWillie! wrote:Business and art are not always enemies, as so many of you seem determined to believe.

No one claimed that but you. I am sure the CG-fied Snow Queen will be beautiful and of high quality. But saying that hand-drawn could not match match CG in beauty and artistry is very untrue. Snow Queen would be equally great (if not better--but that's my opinion) in hand-drawn animation as well. So, claiming artistic reasons for the change in medium is unjustified.

SWillie! wrote:Just as many executives are excited to do the movie in CG, there are also many artists who are very excited to do the movie in CG. The business people are not forcing CG down the artists throats - the majority of the artists at Disney probably WANT to do the film in CG, because it is something new, something they want to explore further.

That's because most of the crew there are CG artists and animators. I highly doubt that the hand-drawn animators are pleased about the lack of 2D projects and the turning of Snow Queen into CG when it was supposed to be their next project which was even originally envisioned as a hand-drawn feature. (And how hypocritical of Disney saying that the hand-drawn Snow Queen got shelved because of story issues. What, suddenly CG has the ability to solve storytelling problems? )

SWillie! wrote:There are many artists there, such as Glen Keane and Randy Noble, who are open to working on both hand drawn and CG films.

Glen Keane has expressed the desire to experiment with animation in both mediums or a combination of the two which is quite commendable. However, I don't see that happening at WDAS. They didn't even let him keep the "painterly" look of Tangled claiming it was distracting and there are rumours that he's leaving WDAS anyway.

I'm not familiar with Randy Noble's work so if you could post some examples to illustrate your point would be great.

SWillie! wrote:There are only a handful of people like Andreas Deja who refuse to move into CG whatsoever. While that's his decision, he's making it knowing full well that if he does not, the future of the animation industry will leave him behind.

Andreas Deja never put down CG animation. He never claimed that's inferior or not artistic. He only said that it's not for him and there are plenty of talented people that can work with that medium. It's true that since he wants to work on hand-drawn animation and the industry is not producing it, he cannot stay in the industry. And it's not just a handful of people who feel this way. They just can't be as vocal since they don't have Andreas status and resources. They were "forced" to work on CG projects to reman employed. You can't deny that a lot of artists were not given much of a choice due to the current nature of the industry.

SWillie! wrote:As someone who would call themselves a "traditional animation fanboy" I'm getting really sick and tired of the way some of you see CG like it is literally the devil himself rising at Disney.

Again, no one said that. You're confusing that with our disappointment and frustration over the lack of hand-drawn projects in the industry. Even stop-motion is more popular than hand-drawn now. No one said that "CG is evil or unartistic".

Peter Del Vecho stated in 2009 that SQ would go into production straigh after snow queen .... (but this has changed obviously)
<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fmdteK1hJlM?rel=0" frameborder="0"></iframe>
In a recent interview for Pooh he stated that after Pooh in will be Wreck-it and the KOTE ... and then a project he will work on ... (could this be the SQ,?)
<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GJWTX8TCaTA?rel=0" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Kyle wrote:Are you talking about simulated multiplane shots? Is not can you be more specific?

No, I'm talking about actual CG backgrounds. They may have went over the actual renderings to make the look of it fit better, but you can tell the difference between a simulated multiplane shot and a cg background when a building changes perspective, not just distance, during a camera move. Off the top of my head, without watching it again, I believe there is a shot during the party at the LaBouff mansion, and also during the Mardi Gras scene. There may be more. I don't see a problem with it... I actually like the effect. But the artists on PatF weren't against using computers to aid them. I believe they might even mention the use of CG briefly in the Art Of book.

Sotiris wrote:I can accept that it was "right" decision from a financial/business perspective but calling this the "right" decision from an artistic/creative perspective is quite arbitrary.

You're right, it is. Which also means that you can't possibly know that it is NOT an artistic decision. I think you ought to be more open to the idea that it might be the right decision both financially and artistically.

Sotiris wrote:That's ridiculous. Most projects at WDAS are CGI. They did not need to turn Snow Queen too into a CGI film to "push boundaries with CG animation". They have so many projects to do that with. And what about exploring the potential and the styles of hand-drawn animation? How about "pushing the boundaries" of that medium? Suddenly, it does matter to explore the hand-drawn medium anymore but only the CG medium because that's the one that sells? I don't see any artistic justification in that.

You're right that they have other projects to push boundaries with. But also keep in mind that Tangled was the very first CG fairy tale. Since Snow Queen is next up in line for fairy tales, I'm sure many are excited to be building on that specific genre in the CG world. And I don't at all think that they shouldn't push hand drawn animation anymore - but I think Glen is on the right track in thinking that the two need to be blended further and further. It should not be an all out war between traditional and CG. It's all animation.

Sotiris wrote:No one claimed that but you. I am sure the CG-fied Snow Queen will be beautiful and of high quality. But saying that hand-drawn could not match match CG in beauty and artistry is very untrue. Snow Queen would be equally great (if not better--but that's my opinion) in hand-drawn animation as well. So, claiming artistic reasons for the change in medium is totally BS.

No one used those exact words, no. But as soon as Disney ever makes a decision that is less than what a lot of people on this forum, as fans, want... many of you immediately jump to blaming the executives for being money-hungry. While I'm sure that is certainly the case in some situations, it is not the case in every situation. We, as fans, can't possibly know what goes on behind the scenes. So, when people jump to conclusions that decisions are made for financial reasons alone, and say things like "nice way to treat your artists, Disney", I assume that art and commerce are thought of as enemies.

I never implied that hand-drawn could not match the beauty and artistry of a CG film, so I have no idea where you're getting that from. Films like Bambi, Pinocchio, Beauty and the Beast... they are leagues ahead in beauty and artistry than any CG film so far. But why not try to get CG to that level?

Sotiris wrote:That's because most artists there are CG artists and animators. I highly doubt that the hand-drawn animators are pleased about the lack of 2D projects and the turning of Snow Queen into CG when it was supposed to be their next project which was even originally envisioned as a hand-drawn feature. (And how hypocritical of Disney saying that the hand-drawn Snow Queen got shelved because of story issues. What, suddenly CG has the ability to solve storytelling problems? Rolling Eyes )

After having been to WDAS a few months ago, many of the artists there seem excited about the future of CG at the studio after the release of Tangled. That film changed the way people look at CG. Yes, even the traditional animators. Many of them are trying their hand at CG. Clay Kaytis, a CG animation supervisor, said that it's interesting to train someone who has been a hand-drawn animator longer than he has been at the studio. So while I'm sure many 2D artists aren't happy about it, there ARE many who are happy about it, or at least intrigued by it.

Also, why has EVERYONE seemed to jump to the conclusion that the story was worked out because of the change to CG? Did I miss where Disney said that? Could it not be a possibility that they took a step back from the film when the story wasn't working, got some different artists in there to take a look at it who happened to think it would be great in CG, and were actually able to start working out some of the story issues? Again, so many of you are jumping to conclusions extremely quickly because it's not what you want, as a fan.

Sotiris wrote:Glen Keane has expressed the desire to experiment with animation in both mediums or a combination of the two which is quite commendable. However, I don't see that happening at WDAS. They didn't even let him keep the "painterly" look of Tangled claiming it was distracting and there are rumours that he's leaving WDAS anyway.

Again, assuming that it was the almighty "them" who didn't "let him" do things his way. While I was at WDAS, I was lucky enough to attend a lecture of Glen's in which he talked about the history of his Rapunzel story and how everything eventually developed into Tangled. He showed us the Swing image and a couple early tests that were done with the so called "painterly" technique. He explained that, while everyone at the studio loved what they were getting with it, it just simply wasn't practical at the time to make an entire feature using the technique. So, the same ideas were used in a lesser manner, and he said he loved the way the film turned out. I assume that he will continue to experiment with the two mediums. I think the rumors of his leaving have been pretty much put to rest. Not completely, but most comments recently in response to the subject have been "Glen's not going anywhere." And those comments seem to have gotten no rebuttals claiming otherwise.

Sotiris wrote:I'm not familiar with Randy Noble's work so if you could post some examples to illustrate your point would be great.

Whoops My mistake, I meant Randy Haycock. Randy Noble is a Disney Parks artist. We sell some of his paintings in the gallery at Hollywood Studios. Anyways, Randy Haycock, who I had the pleasure of meeting and emailing a few times, worked on Aladdin, The Lion King, and many others, most recently Winnie the Pooh. But he as also worked on Chicken Little and Meet the Robinsons as a supervising animator, and from what I understand he was very involved in the ideas behind the heavy use of CG in Treasure Planet. He has told me that the artists at Disney who can and will do both traditional and CG animation are invaluable, and that he plans on working on a CG film next.

Sotiris wrote:Andreas Deja never but down CG animation. He never claimed that's inferior or not artistic. He only said that it's not for him and there are plenty of talented people that can work on that medium. It's true that since he wants to work on hand-drawn animation and the industry is not producing it, he cannot stay in the industry. And it's not just a handful of people who feel this way. They just can't be as vocal since they don't have Andreas status and resources. They were "forced" to work on CG projects to reman employed. You can't deny that a lot of artists were not given much of a choice due to the current nature of the industry.

I never said Andreas Deja claimed that CG is inferior or less artistic... or anything close to that. You didn't make any point here.

While I'm sure some animators are moving to CG because they are being "forced" to by the nature of the industry, there are also many who are intrigued by the medium and who are happy to give it a try. You keep talking as if traditional animators can only be that, and that if they ever have to do something else they are undoubtedly miserable. That is just simply not the case.

Sotiris wrote:Again, no one said that. You're confusing that with our disappointment and frustration over the lack of hand-drawn projects in the industry. Even stop-motion is more popular than hand-drawn now. No one said that "CG is evil or unartistic".

Obviously I was exaggerating that disappointment and frustration into what I called the devil himself. I realize no one actually said that. I'm not confusing anything. Some of you are getting SO frustrated that, to someone like me, it seems that you think CG must be the epitome of everything that is evil.

Overall, I feel that you all should try and look at things from the perspective of the filmmakers. Not the executives, not the traditional animators or the CG animators, not the directors, and most importantly, not as FANS. All of the artists working on these films are filmmakers, first and foremost. They are going to make a film that they are interested in making, in the way that they are interested in making it. While we may not like some of their decisions, those decisions were all made for a reason. Hopefully, a good one. But that is not for us to decide. That is for the filmmakers to decide. I, for one, will await the day when it doesn't matter how a film is being done, but only that a film is being done.

SWillie! wrote: As someone who would call themselves a "traditional animation fanboy" I'm getting really sick and tired of the way some of you see CG like it is literally the devil himself rising at Disney.

I don't, honestly. I'm extremely excited for Wreck-It Ralph (at a time when it felt like I was the only one who was). I just don't like to see films in 2D constantly being turned CGI at Disney. Because part of me gets even more excited by the prospect of a 2D film--partly because they're so rare these days, and partly because I do enjoy 2D more. So I don't like getting my hopes up only for Disney to yank the rug out from under me, though I did expect it following their disappointment over TP&TF.

... as soon as Disney ever makes a decision that is less than what a lot of people on this forum, as fans, want... many of you immediately jump to blaming the executives for being money-hungry. While I'm sure that is certainly the case in some situations, it is not the case in every situation. We, as fans, can't possibly know what goes on behind the scenes.

Well, here's the set of events:

1. The Snow Queen is in development during TP&TF and Tangled's releases or soon after.

2. TP&TF--a hand-drawn fairy tale--doesn't do blockbusters. Tangled--a CG fairy tale--does do blockbusters.

3. Development on the hand-drawn fairy tale, The Snow Queen, ends because of "story problems."

4. The Snow Queen shortly returns revisioned as a CGI fairy tale with apparently no story problems in sight.

So, yeah? I don't think artistic reasons played any part of this, though I'm sure the people working on it will make the most of the medium regardless. To pretend that this is anything but a business decision seems a little ridiculous to me based on the sequence of events. TP&TF's numbers also affected Rapunzel's name change (also not an artistic decision), so I'm hardly surprised that it would also be the cause of this either.

SWillie! wrote:I, for one, will await the day when it doesn't matter how a film is being done, but only that a film is being done.

I await a time where any medium of film can be made, rather than what is most popular.

SWillie! wrote:You're right, it is. Which also means that you can't possibly know that it is NOT an artistic decision.

Fine. But how do you know that it IS an artistic decision?

SWillie! wrote:And I don't at all think that they shouldn't push hand drawn animation anymore.

But they aren't, and from all signs, nor do they intend to.

SWillie! wrote:I think Glen is on the right track in thinking that the two need to be blended further and further.

By "blending" you mean applying 2D principles and styles on CG animation. But that does not advance hand-drawn animation; only CG.

SWillie! wrote:It should not be an all out war between traditional and CG. It's all animation.

It's not a war. We hand-drawn fans don't hate CG or want it to disappear at all. But when the one medium dominates the market while the other is near extinction it's clearly unfair to both artists and fans. There is not a balance in the market with both mediums co-existing and prospering, as I think it should be.

SWillie! wrote:No one used those exact words, no. But as soon as Disney ever makes a decision that is less than what a lot of people on this forum, as fans, want... many of you immediately jump to blaming the executives for being money-hungry. While I'm sure that is certainly the case in some situations, it is not the case in every situation. We, as fans, can't possibly know what goes on behind the scenes. So, when people jump to conclusions that decisions are made for financial reasons alone, and say things like "nice way to treat your artists, Disney", I assume that art and commerce are thought of as enemies.

Clearly, though, in this case the decision to change mediums was primarily financial. There may or may not have been artistic reasons behind it as well but those appear to be secondary.

SWillie! wrote:But why not try to get CG to that level?

No one said otherwise. We should. But we should also try to advance hand-drawn animation at the same time and not abandon it.

SWillie! wrote:After having been to WDAS a few months ago, many of the artists there seem excited about the future of CG at the studio after the release of Tangled.

You went to WDAS, and didn't provide us with a detailed description of your visit and experience? Shame on you shame!

SWillie! wrote:That film changed the way people look at CG. Yes, even the traditional animators. Many of them are trying their hand at CG. Clay Kaytis, a CG animation supervisor, said that it's interesting to train someone who has been a hand-drawn animator longer than he has been at the studio. So while I'm sure many 2D artists aren't happy about it, there ARE many who are happy about it, or at least intrigued by it.

Sure, but that happens to the hand-drawn artists that are neither happy nor intrigued by them? Disney does not have a vision for hand-drawn animation anymore nor do they intend to push the boundaries of the medium. They are not even making hand-drawn shorts let alone features. It's all about CG now both in terms of financial and artistic expectations.

SWillie! wrote:Also, why has EVERYONE seemed to jump to the conclusion that the story was worked out because of the change to CG? Did I miss where Disney said that? Could it not be a possibility that they took a step back from the film when the story wasn't working, got some different artists in there to take a look at it who happened to think it would be great in CG, and were actually able to start working out some of the story issues? Again, so many of you are jumping to conclusions extremely quickly because it's not what you want, as a fan.

I think you misunderstood my argument. Disney claimed that the reason they shelved hand-drawn Snow Queen was because of story problems and not because The Princess and the Frog which was both hand-drawn and a fairytale had underperformed. When Tangled was a hit, which was CG and a fairytale, they decided to revive Snow Queen as a CG film. If it were true that the only reason they had shelved it was story issues, now that they apparently have solved these they would retain Snow Queen as a hand-drawn feature. Therefore, the reason it was initially shelved had more to do with financial concerns about the medium and less about story problems.

SWillie! wrote:While I was at WDAS, I was lucky enough to attend a lecture of Glen's in which he talked about the history of his Rapunzel story and how everything eventually developed into Tangled. He showed us the Swing image and a couple early tests that were done with the so called "painterly" technique.

Were you allowed to take any photos or videos?

SWillie! wrote:He has told me that the artists at Disney who can and will do both traditional and CG animation are invaluable, and that he plans on working on a CG film next.

That's a given but most can't do both. It depends on talent and skills. Did he tell you what he is working on next?

SWillie! wrote:While I'm sure some animators are moving to CG because they are being "forced" to by the nature of the industry, there are also many who are intrigued by the medium and who are happy to give it a try. You keep talking as if traditional animators can only be that, and that if they ever have to do something else they are undoubtedly miserable. That is just simply not the case.

No, but you are forgetting that there are artists who either can't or don't want to work on CG (like Andreas) and are left either unemployed or unsatisfied with their work. There should be room for them and hand-drawn animation in the industry. That's all I'm saying.

SWillie! wrote:Some of you are getting SO frustrated that, to someone like me, it seems that you think CG must be the epitome of everything that is evil.

You're generalizing now. I don't think that most UD members here give off that impression. You're talking about one or two members only.

SWillie! wrote:But that is not for us to decide. That is for the filmmakers to decide.

Obviously, but can't we have opinions about it and discuss it on fan-forum? Should we just silently embrace whatever decisions are made and not share our opinions about it? That's what we're here for to begin with.

SWillie! wrote:I, for one, will await the day when it doesn't matter how a film is being done, but only that a film is being done.

Well, for me the medium does matter. If it all that mattered was "films being done and not how they were done" I wouldn't be an animation fan. I would be just a general movie fan. There is a reason we like animated films in particular; it's primarily the medium. Otherwise, we would be fans of "family-friendly" movies in general.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

... as soon as Disney ever makes a decision that is less than what a lot of people on this forum, as fans, want... many of you immediately jump to blaming the executives for being money-hungry. While I'm sure that is certainly the case in some situations, it is not the case in every situation. We, as fans, can't possibly know what goes on behind the scenes.

Well, here's the set of events:

1. The Snow Queen is in development during TP&TF and Tangled's releases or soon after.

2. TP&TF--a hand-drawn fairy tale--doesn't do blockbusters. Tangled--a CG fairy tale--does do blockbusters.

3. Development on the hand-drawn fairy tale, The Snow Queen, ends because of "story problems."

4. The Snow Queen shortly returns revisioned as a CGI fairy tale with apparently no story problems in sight.

So, yeah? I don't think artistic reasons played any part of this, though I'm sure the people working on it will make the most of the medium regardless. To pretend that this is anything but a business decision seems a little ridiculous to me based on the sequence of events. TP&TF's numbers also affected Rapunzel's name change (also not an artistic decision), so I'm hardly surprised that it would also be the cause of this either.

SWillie! wrote:I, for one, will await the day when it doesn't matter how a film is being done, but only that a film is being done.

I await a time where any medium of film can be made, rather than what is most popular.

Well said!

So a friend of mine just toured Dreamworks studio because her father knows Dominic Bilodeau (an animator). After she talked with the Dominic, she said that he said Snow Queen is definitely greenlit and Disney is also working on another princess flick. He didn't say whether either were CG or hand drawn. And the other "princess flick" wasn't The King of Elves (which is also definitely in production.)

I know this is a "I heard from a random source that x, y and z is happening" story, but I thought I'd share. It made me happy.

Patrick wrote:So a friend of mine just toured Dreamworks studio because her father knows Dominic Bilodeau (an animator). After she talked with the Dominic, she said that he said Snow Queen is definitely greenlit and Disney is also working on another princess flick. He didn't say whether either were CG or hand drawn.

Thanks for sharing. I've got a question though; how does an animator at DreamWorks knows so much about WDAS' upcoming films?

How close in proximity are WDAS and DreamWorks Animation? I'm sure animators from the different companies are friends, especially since certain animators have gone back and forth between the two studios. They probably break non-disclosure agreements all the time and share info. with each other...

Patrick wrote:So a friend of mine just toured Dreamworks studio because her father knows Dominic Bilodeau (an animator). After she talked with the Dominic, she said that he said Snow Queen is definitely greenlit and Disney is also working on another princess flick. He didn't say whether either were CG or hand drawn. And the other "princess flick" wasn't The King of Elves (which is also definitely in production.)

Wait, wait, wait. So.... lemme see if this is right: Is Disney still doing Snow Queen, or did Dreamworks pick that up? And if it's the latter, then what would Disney's next 'princess' film be?