DVDizzy Forum

It was 20 years ago from now that Pixar's Toy Story, the very first fully computer animated movie was made and changed the animation industry... but was it really for the better? Since the overabundance of CG movies today is such a big issue for me, as well as the perceived threat of those movies killing off the art of hand-drawn animation, I wanted to bring up the discussion of "Would Disney and the animation industry have been better off without Toy Story and computer animated movies?".

One thing I want to clarify right away is that the original Toy Story was just as much a big part of my Disney childhood as The Lion King and Aladdin were, and so I have more of a soft spot for it than I do any other computer animated movie franchise or studio. I owned one of the original Woody dolls for the movie that were being put out by Thinkway Toys. I went to Burger King during Christmas and got the whole set of those character hand puppets. I had the Toy Story Animated Storybook game and played it all the time on my computer. And I even got autographs from the characters when I went to Disney World in 1997. It's because of my personal attachment to Toy Story that I guess I actually don't want to hate Pixar, which is why I'm more quick to blame the growing competition like DreamWorks for ruining things than Pixar themselves, but I have grown so tired of having countless CG movies crammed down my throat every year that I simply don't have the passion for watching Pixar films again like I used to. I mean, I've literally had no interest in seeing their latest movie Inside Out. At all. Not even by the concept of it.

It would be so easy to say that if the movie that started it all never got made (in fact, it almost got canceled in production due to story problems) and John Lasseter simply gave up on the idea of a computer animated movie, then the animation industry as a whole would have never been filled with this type of animation, and Disney would have never turned their backs on their own art of 2D animation, and from my point of view, become corrupted by CGI. Hand-drawn animation would be just as strong today as it had always been, even in the 90's. But then again, you could also say that "There's nothing wrong with having variety". And that was really Pixar's goal with the original Toy Story. There was no agenda from them to tell the world that CGI is a superior medium for animation and that this is how all animation must be from now on. It's clear to me that Lasseter still respected hand-drawn animation, because that was the whole reason he pushed for Disney to make Princess and the Frog in the first place. He had a vision for what CGI could be capable of as an animated medium and wanted to share that vision with the world, but not at the expense of other forms of art. He wanted to give us something different, new, and innovative to go with all the other animation that we have. To add variety. Problem is, CG movies don't give us any variety anymore. Even Disney chooses to sacrifice their own variety in hand-drawn animation in favor of simply being another Pixar that only wants to do their movies in CGI.

So, can CG movies really co-exist with traditional animation in the animation industry today, or do we want to hear Lasseter say something like this instead?



I didn't make that, BTW. I only found it on Google. Thoughts?

I think Disney inadvertently gave CG animation a big boost themselves by partnering with Pixar and releasing Toy Story in the first place, and also by letting Jeffrey Katzenberg go and set up Dreamworks Animation. Had a studio with less brand power and less expertise in releasing and promoting animated films released the exact same Toy Story, then there may have been less enthusiasm on the part of other studios to release CG films. The fact that somebody who knew the inner workings of the Disney marketing machine went over and set up a new studio also leaves a lot to be said (even if Dreamworks these days aren't doing anywhere near as well as they used to).

In all honesty, I think that there wouldn't be that much difference in terms of the quality and entertainment value (I'm not talking about whether the films would be CGI or traditionally animated, by the way). I think Disney may have still held more monopoly than they do now (simply as fewer start-up animation studios would have opened), but it wouldn't have necessarily made their films any better or any worse. There still would be independent and foreign films released in limited release, and the odd mainstream stop-motion film would appear. I'm sure a fully CGI feature film would have been made by someone down the line, whether by Disney or by another smaller studio.

The whole reason we have a Pixar animation studio was because Disney fired John Lasseter back in 1983, failing to realize the ambition he was offering the studio at the time. Had he NOT been fired, he would've worked on an animated treatment of "Where the Wild Things Are", which would've used CGI backgrounds coupled with Glen Keane's hand-drawn animation. While that particular project never came to be, the general concept would be used in Disney's future films anyway.

Also, CGI animation was making progress in other areas beyond what John Lasseter had in store. It was slowly becoming more prevalent in many television commercials and movie logos used throughout the 1980s.

So if Lasseter hadn't been fired back then, OR even if Toy Story wasn't made, the world of animation would not have been better or worse off. We can rule out any scenario of technology stagnating, since animation was built upon technological achievements; The IDEA of an all-CGI feature would've still emerged at some point in time.

The all-CGI mandate we're faced with though, is not the fault of the medium itself. It follows an unfortunate pattern in modern society where people become so enamored with the latest technology, they mistakenly dismiss any other media that's considered obsolete.
When cars were invented, bikes and public transportation was suddenly considered "old hat". Especially since the post-WWII era, having a car erroneously meant that someone was "well-to-do", whereas taking a bus, bike, train, etc. meant that you were "poor". Even in an American society heavily dependent on cars, public transit never went away, and in many urban areas, is now being re-embraced in light of the uncertain economy.

Another example would be the innovation of photography. I can't confirm this, but it probably pays more to be a photographer than it does a painter. Artists CAN still capture realistic portraits thru drawing, painting, or sculpting if they so choose; each media can offer a different perspective that the others can't. The point is, photography has changed the CONCEPT and ECONOMICS behind realistic media, but it never wiped out painting, drawing, or sculpting.

For the CGI versus hand-drawn debate, the concern is not WILL Disney (or whomever) ever re-explore hand-drawn animation, but WHEN? The success of CGI is part of why we now have sustainable competition of theatrical animation studios. So at some point, one of the mainstream studios, or a newer company may want to take a gamble on something to set themselves apart from the others. Many former Disney animators are working on independent hand-drawn projects as we speak; when they will inspire renewed investment in hand-drawn, be it by DIsney or someone else has yet to be determined.

Who knows. I voted yes, but that has more to do with how repetitive animated films have become since Lasseter's model basically took over two studios. Whether or not hand-drawn animation had continued for more time or not, I imagine it might be a little better to have a world where every movie wasn't about two people who think they're nothing alike going on a roadtrip and learning more about each other.

I'd guess Dreamworks would've eventually spurred the market into 3D movies even if Pixar hadn't been around, and Disney would've followed if they'd been as successful as nearly all 3D films seem to be these days regardless of story quality.

CG would have taken over with or without pixar, so no absolutely not. Its human nature to seek out more efficient ways to do things. I realize certain things are still not as easy to do in CG, but on paper (no pun intended) traditional animation is bad idea, time is money and having to hand draw every frame required a lot of each. Automating a lot of the process was just a matter of time. And for a while there resulted in a more eye popping look, at least until audiences got desensitized to the idea.

I picked "No".

Yes, I can see how people despise CGI, but it still has its merit and brought a new form to the world and realness of animation.

Now, has CGI killed 2D hand-drawn animation? Certainly not! Sure there's less of it in movies right now, but it still lives through TV, behind-the-scenes, independent film studios, we even had a SpongeBob movie this year that had 2D animation.

Getting back to the point, CGI brought us a new way of telling a story and to this day CGI is making leaps and bounds in new techniques, new styles, new advancements, new forms. Each studio who uses it finds new ways of making it better, more realistic, but still cartoon-y.

Now in a world where CGI films never existed and were all hand-drawn, could the studios strive? Would hand-drawn animation climb higher or would it crumble to the ground? Who's to say?

In conclusion, having CGI animation is a joy. Yes, I would love to see more hand-drawn films (be it Disney or anyone else), but seeing the innovations and accomplishments each CGI movie has made and how it still qualifies as animation, I can't get enough of it.

Had there not been a Toy Story, there would have been something else to take it's place as the first CG animated film. I think it's silly to even kind of speculate that somehow CG wouldn't exist without Toy Story or PIXAR. It was always going to exist. While I'm not the biggest fan of how CG has taken over the industry, I'm happy if CG was going to get it's start that it was PIXAR that did it first.

No. I'd usually explain myself, but others have already done a good job.

And 2D animation is thriving even today. No, not at Disney, and not at the big US studios. But let's please stop acting like 2D animation has been wiped off the face of the earth. You don't even need to look very hard to find some amazing work being done in 2D animation today. I understand the desire to see a 2D film from Disney, as I'd love to see one myself. I don't think we'll see one very soon, but I do think it will come back around eventually.

No, even if Pixar was never founded and John Lasseter never became interested in computer animation, we would still have CG animated films today. Pixar wasn't the only company experimenting with computer animation and with passionate animators wanting to create feature films. A couple of months before Toy Story was released, there was a partly CG animated segment on The Simpsons and that episode led to Katzenberg hiring PDI to make animated films for DreamWorks. Blue Sky had also existed for a while long before they made Ice Age.

With the advances of computer-generated special effects in the early '90s with Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park, eventually somebody would have gotten a lightbulb and said "Hey, let's make a whole movie with this technology." There's probably an alternate universe where instead of John Lasseter, it's Chris Wedge or Tim Johnson who spearheaded the computer animated feature movement.

Semaj wrote:Had he NOT been fired, he would've worked on an animated treatment of "Where the Wild Things Are", which would've used CGI backgrounds coupled with Glen Keane's hand-drawn animation. While that particular project never came to be, the general concept would be used in Disney's future films anyway.

Actually, that was only for test purposes. It was never meant to be made into a feature. Lasseter was interested in adapting The Brave Little Toaster. He was attached to direct it and he wanted to do it in CG and that's what he would have been doing, had he not been let go from Disney.

Kyle wrote:CG would have taken over with or without Pixar, so no absolutely not.

While I agree that CG would have taken over eventually, if Toy Story hadn't been made, CG wouldn't have become the industry standard so quickly. If it weren't for Pixar, a fully-CG feature wouldn't have been released so soon and if the first CG feature wasn't a critical and commercial success, studios would have jumped so quickly into this new medium. That would have prolonged the life of hand-drawn animation in Hollywood significantly.

ce1ticmoon wrote:And 2D animation is thriving even today.

No, 2D is not thriving by any stretch of the imagination. Hand-drawn animation is in decline now more than ever before, both in terms of quantity and quality. There are no 2D features produced in the U.S. while on TV, shows are Flash-based with crude and limited animation. In Europe, the number of 2D-animated features has dropped significantly. Even low-budget, indie films have gone CG. In Japan, there has been a decrease of 2D-animated output as well with fully-CG animated features and series gaining more and more ground. Not to mention that the quality of anime itself has declined due the sheer volume of outsourcing which is higher than ever before.

Yes, 2D animation still exists and there is still a handful of high-quality animated products out there but that in no way means that 2D-animation is "thriving". It's merely surviving.

ce1ticmoon wrote:I understand the desire to see a 2D film from Disney, as I'd love to see one myself. I don't think we'll see one very soon, but I do think it will come back around eventually.

I'm tired of these "someday my prince will come" statements about 2D animation. We need to stop giving people false hope. It's time to face the fact that Disney will never produce another 2D feature. Disney doesn't have the personnel, the equipment, the incentive or the desire to continue producing hand-drawn animation. They're not even willing to do a 2D short, let alone a feature.

Sotiris wrote:I'm tired of these "someday my prince will come" statements about 2D animation. We need to stop giving people false hope. It's time to face the fact that Disney will never produce another 2D feature. Disney doesn't have the personnel, the equipment, the incentive or the desire to continue producing hand-drawn animation. They're not even willing to do a 2D short, let alone a feature.

That's only because they were idiots and fired those personnel and recklessly threw away their equipment because they fell for a tragic misconception about 2D animation and gave up everything they ever believed in as a hand-drawn studio. And as for an incentive, maybe they should want to keep 2D animation alive because it's not only their legacy, but it's also a valuable art form that deserves to be alive!

I'm sorry, but for Disney to never go back to 2D animation again is simply out of the question. 2D is what they're meant for, and they will return to it one way or another. They can't spend the rest of their lives being just a carbon copy of Pixar, because why should they both only do CGI?

Sotiris wrote: No, 2D is not thriving by any stretch of the imagination.

I was going to say that. I was thinking--where? On the moon?

Moreover, it's too bad everyone has made this topic solely about 2D vs. 3D. I mean, I'm sure that's what 2Disney4Ever intended ( ) , but there are other things that've happened because of Pixar's domination besides the end of hand-drawn animation, which likely would've happened (albeit at a slower rate) without Pixar. But I probably would be in the minority there, since most people seem to like Pixar's brand of storytelling.

Sotiris wrote:No, 2D is not thriving by any stretch of the imagination. Hand-drawn animation is in decline now more than ever been before, both in terms of quantity and quality. There are no 2D features produced in the U.S. while on TV, shows are Flash-based with crude and limited animation. In Europe, the number of 2D-animated features has dropped significantly. Even low-budget, indie films have gone CG. In Japan, there has been a decrease of 2D-animated output as well with fully-CG animated features and series gaining more and more ground. Not to mention that the quality of anime itself has declined due the sheer volume of outsourcing which is higher than ever before.

Yes, 2D animation still exists and there is still a handful of high-quality animated products out there but that in no way means that 2D-animation is "thriving". It's merely surviving.

I'll admit that "thriving" may not have been the most apt word to use there. But my main argument is that it hasn't died out and is hardly on the brink of disappearing. There is still a lot of amazing work being done.

And there's always been junk and lower quality productions, especially in TV, even if methods have changed. The Hanna-Barbera productions that were so ubiquitous in the 60s and 70s were never synonymous with quality, and the Filmation productions and other similar stuff that we saw a lot of in the 70s and 80s were well-known for shoddy quality due to limited animation and low framerates (think He-Man, and that's pretty representative a of a lot of TV series we saw back then). There was a golden age in the 90s that the industry has fallen from, that's true. The flash stuff that is so prevalent today, is indeed, very limited and perhaps even "crude" in terms of animation. But limited methods don't necessarily preclude creativity and artistry; sometimes great work comes about due to limited means and methods. Whatever you think of the TV productions today (I'm not a fan at all, but I've never been big on TV animation), the praise that is heaped upon a lot of those shows tells me that, at the very least, there is a strong consensus that there is artistic and/or cultural value in those shows. Just because animation quality hasn't consistently gone up (or has even come done from a peak) doesn't mean that 2D animation is at a lower point than it's ever been. As for quantity, I won't argue that it has gone down, but with other mediums to share space with, that's hardly surprising. So again, I will admit that "thriving" was a bad choice of words, but I think it is doing more than barely standing on its last legs.

As for the numbers of 2D animated features in Europe, again, I'm not surprised that it has gone down with so many European creators and studios embracing CGI. How significantly have the figures fallen? And compared to when? (This is a genuine question, as I have no idea when it comes to actual figures.) But even with the sheer numbers decreasing, there are many unique 2D animated features coming from Europe even today. A small handful are imported to the US, but there are many more that never make their way accross the Atlantic. And even with the numbers decreasing, it seems that the creators that want to make films in the 2D medium are generally free to do so. It isn't like in the US, where animated filmmakers don't even have that option or have to rely on crowdfunding to do so. (As an aside, the claim that there are no 2D features produced in the US is a bit of a hyperbole though, as independent filmmakers like Bill Plympton continue to make 2D features, and even the Spongebob movie from earlier this year was mostly a 2D feature.) Although this moves away from the point a bit, isn't that the most ideal environment for filmmaking, where the filmmakers make use of the medium of their choosing? A lot of filmmakers are opting for CGI, but many are still opting for 2D and hand-drawn, with no indication that CGI will be the default option like is the case in the US. And to move even further away from the point a bit, there is some interesting work being done in CGI in Europe, coming up with aesthetics that we don't get to see coming from the big studios in the US. So honestly, I see that as a fair trade-off to account for some of the decrease in 2D features.

As for Japan, CGI is there, and perhaps gaining ground, but the vast majority of their output is still 2D, and there is no indication that it is in jeopardy of being taken over by CGI. Of course, there are other much more worrying trends there, though, like the insanely low wages and long, tedius hours for animators. I agree that the increased amount of outsourcing in animation there is a troubling trend, though I'm not sure it is avoidable given the dwindling population and economy there.

TL;DR. "Thriving" was a bad choice of words. I was mostly just annoyed by some of these endless rants that act as though 2D has ceased to exist. But if you read my original comment, I would say that taking my first sentence out of context alters the main idea of what I was actually saying there.

Sotiris wrote:I'm tired of these "someday my prince will come" statements about 2D animation. We need to stop giving people false hope. It's time to face the fact that Disney will never produce another 2D feature. Disney doesn't have the personnel, the equipment, the incentive or the desire to continue producing hand-drawn animation. They're not even willing to do a 2D short, let alone a feature.

My intention was not to give anyone false hope, but just to state what I think. Obviously nothing is on the slate in the immediate or foreseeable future. But to say that they will never produce another 2D feature? Isn't that a bit presumptuous? How do we know what is in store 10 or 20 years down the line? Disney animation reached one of its peaks in the early 90s with its hand-drawn features, and at that time, who would have imagined that a decade later, a form of animation that most people didn't even know about yet would become the go-to medium for US animated features? We really don't know what's in store for the future, but trends are always changing. Sometimes they change gradually, other times they change suddenly. Sometimes, they cycle back to something that came before. 2D animation could very well make a return at Disney someday. Maybe it won't, but I'm simply saying that I think it will eventually. If not, something else that we have yet to imagine may overtake CGI (for better or for worse). We'll just have to wait and see.

Disney's Divinity wrote:Who knows. I voted yes, but that has more to do with how repetitive animated films have become since Lasseter's model basically took over two studios.

Yes, but one could argue that Disney's films from the 1990s did the same thing. Take an old story, give it an angle about an outsider wanting to find their place in life and add a Broadway-style musical score. The fact that there wouldn't have been other films using a different storytelling model to compare it to may have meant that we may have seen more films like that going into the 21st century.

Disney's Divinity wrote:Whether or not hand-drawn animation had continued for more time or not, I imagine it might be a little better to have a world where every movie wasn't about two people who think they're nothing alike going on a roadtrip and learning more about each other.

I agree. I've had enough of Pixar's storytelling formula. It's become contrived and overused. It's true that Disney also had a storytelling template in the 90s, (and still does) but I've always found that much more entertaining in execution than Pixar's.

Sotiris wrote:

Disney's Divinity wrote:Whether or not hand-drawn animation had continued for more time or not, I imagine it might be a little better to have a world where every movie wasn't about two people who think they're nothing alike going on a roadtrip and learning more about each other.

I agree. I've had enough of Pixar's storytelling formula. It's become contrived and overused. It's true that Disney also had a storytelling template in the 90s, (and still does) but I've always found that much more entertaining in execution than Pixar's.

Not to mention they tended to be more different in tone from one another where pretty much every Pixar movie does feel the same in tone.

Sotiris wrote:I'm tired of these "someday my prince will come" statements about 2D animation. We need to stop giving people false hope. It's time to face the fact that Disney will never produce another 2D feature. Disney doesn't have the personnel, the equipment, the incentive or the desire to continue producing hand-drawn animation. They're not even willing to do a 2D short, let alone a feature.

While I agree it doesn't look to be happening any time soon, Never is a strong word. Do you have any concept on how long that is? I have no doubt it'll happen at some point. No, I'm not expecting another Mermaid to jumpstart the medium, but to think we're never going to get another one is ridiculous. Maybe they don't have the peronnel or equipment, so what? They're the biggest most successful cooperation I can think of, they have tons of money, they can hire personnel and buy the equipment.

While maybe not technically "ever again", it is true that Disney has no monetary incentive to produce another hand drawn animated feature at least for the next 10-15 years. Ever if the Paperman style succeeds with features, there's no guarantee they'll do one entierly with a 2-D style...let alone with pencil drawings.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

Sotiris wrote: No, 2D is not thriving by any stretch of the imagination.

I was going to say that. I was thinking--where? On the moon?

Moreover, it's too bad everyone has made this topic solely about 2D vs. 3D. I mean, I'm sure that's what 2Disney4Ever intended ( ) , but there are other things that've happened because of Pixar's domination besides the end of hand-drawn animation, which likely would've happened (albeit at a slower rate) without Pixar. But I probably would be in the minority there, since most people seem to like Pixar's brand of storytelling.

Actually, my intention was just to bring up a perfectly theoretical question on if the animation industry would indeed be better today without the influence of CG movies and if hand-drawn continued to be the dominant medium like it always had been. Discussing the issue at it's source is better than me going into rants about it, right? But you know, the only thing that Sotiris' hopeless, spirit breaking attitude that 2D animation will never come back to Disney really does is just make me continue to hate Disney and CGI more and more, and trash every new animated movie that Disney puts out now. If you can't have any hope for the things you value in life, then you're just left feeling bitterness and negativity towards the things that you blame for losing it.

Hence why I'm not watching/supporting CG movies anymore.

Sotiris wrote:I agree. I've had enough of Pixar's storytelling formula. It's become contrived and overused. It's true that Disney also had a storytelling template in the 90s, (and still does) but I've always found that much more entertaining in execution than Pixar's.

Agreed. And I'm tired of both critics and dense, hostile fanboys defending Pixar at the expense of Disney. I remember reading a "Brother Bear" review where the reviewer claimed that "The Lion King" wouldn't have been successful if it was released in 2003. When "Finding Nemo"had it's dominance. He neglected "TLK" at the expense of "Nemo"! And yes, "Brother Bear" was neglected at the expense of Pixar (although "Bear" is a cluttered and half-baked film, it still enhances the perks of Disney Animation at it's best)

I'm certainly not neglecting "Nemo" and do consider it to be a Pixar movie which deserved it's success (though I've noticed it's flaws through later viewings). There are many theories why "The Lion King" was successful. Though I won't sound like a fanboy, I think it was a hit hence it's a brilliant movie and several people thought the same. It was a movie that appealed to a huge demographic and therefore earned it's success. Of course it's a subjective statement, but "TLK" is indeed loved for a reason.