Hand-Drawn Animation Dead at Disney

[Sotiris]

I don't think it has to do with whether Lasseter likes hand-drawn animation or not. I'm sure he does. He just doesn't believe that the medium can be financially viable anymore. He did what he thought would be best for the studio's profitability (and for his career in the long run). He's not willing to take a risk by letting the studio produce more 2D features. I don't think Iger is solely to blame; Lasseter also has a part in this. He could have fought harder for the medium or at least given it a second chance. He could have kept Frozen in 2D, for example, as it was originally envisioned. Instead he completely gave up on the medium after The Princess and the Frog underperformed, ignoring all the other possible reasons why the film wasn't financially successful. That's why I don't think we'll get a 2D feature even after Iger leaves the company.

[TsWade2]

I don't think it has to do with whether Lasseter likes hand-drawn animation or not. I'm sure he does. He just doesn't believe that the medium can be financially viable anymore. He did what he thought would be best for the studio's profitability (and for his career in the long run). He's not willing to take a risk by letting the studio produce more 2D features. I don't think Iger is solely to blame; Lasseter also has a part in this. He could have fought harder for the medium or at least given it a second chance. He could have kept Frozen in 2D, for example, as it was originally envisioned. Instead he completely gave up on the medium after The Princess and the Frog underperformed, ignoring all the other possible reasons why the film wasn't financially successful. That's why I don't think we'll get a 2D feature even after Iger leaves the company.

Oh come on!

[Marky_198]

He just doesn't believe that the medium can be financially viable anymore.

He completely gave up on the medium after The Princess and the Frog underperformed

You are right. And I think it was a huge mistake, because I would hardly call TPATF "the medium".
2d has much more opportunities than only that style. The possibilities are endless (different styles, more painterly, etc) Or a mix of both 2d and 3d. But the current 3dfilms are all very disappointing and uninspiring to me.

I think the 2d route going in a different way has more future than the 3d route they are taking right now. It still looks like toys come alive. They are still not quite there. I'm still waiting for the breakthrough that was "Snow White" back in the day, because every 3d film that came out so far can be compared to the then""groundbreaking" movies of Walt Disney, like the one with the trees, before Snow White was made.

[JTurner]

I don't think it has to do with whether Lasseter likes hand-drawn animation or not. I'm sure he does. He just doesn't believe that the medium can be financially viable anymore. He did what he thought would be best for the studio's profitability (and for his career in the long run). He's not willing to take a risk by letting the studio produce more 2D features. I don't think Iger is solely to blame; Lasseter also has a part in this. He could have fought harder for the medium or at least given it a second chance. He could have kept Frozen in 2D, for example, as it was originally envisioned. Instead he completely gave up on the medium after The Princess and the Frog underperformed, ignoring all the other possible reasons why the film wasn't financially successful. That's why I don't think we'll get a 2D feature even after Iger leaves the company.

I don't think that is altogether true; I'm sure Disney will try at least one more 2D feature, but any future handdrawn animated feature will probably be in the style of Paperman. And frankly, I'd be OK with that. And it's not like they're completely done with handdrawn animation either; their TV shows are still doing it and there are the Mickey Mouse shorts, too. That doesn't sound like totally giving up on handdrawn animation altogether.

Although really the best way for Disney to consider doing another 2D handdrawn feature is if someone else does ala Don Bluth. And there are plenty of other studios doing 2D animation, too. One day it will be awakened again; the slump is only temporary. That's what I think.

[DisneyJedi]

Yeah. And besides, if Disney were done with hand-drawn completely, they'd have axed ALL the 2D animators.

[Sotiris]

I can't believe the "decision makers" at WDAS actually said this. This has got to be one of the most ridiculous, most ignorant things I've ever heard!

So, a friend of mine who is a top 2D animator at Disney was one of those who was recently laid off--after over 25 years! He told me one of the reasons he knew the writing was on the wall for him and other 2D animators was that the "decision makers" on the projects at Disney looked at the 2D guys as "ham actors". They compared the acting style of traditional 2D animation to CG animation saying it was like comparing Vaudeville to Shakespearian acting styles. That 2D animation was too broad to show the subtleties of performance and emotion that the studio is now trying to achieve. What do you think?

Source: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... 381&type=1

[estefan]

Actually, you'd be surprised. The list of stupid and ignorant things your average movie studio executives have said is as tall as the Tower of Babel.

[Marky_198]

"That 2D animation was too broad to show the subtleties of performance and emotion that the studio is now trying to achieve."

WHAT?!?!

I have never seen any 3d character that comes even close to the subtleties of emotion and performance that 2d characters have. And fluid movement for that matter.

These "decision makers" need help and don't belong in animation.

[UmbrellaFish]

Wow, that is incredibly stupid. It makes me sick to think that people such as those are employed at Walt Disney's studio.

[TsWade2]

But what about the summer intern for new 2D animators?

[JTurner]

But what about the summer intern for new 2D animators?

I'm sure that it is still happening; traditional animation CANNOT exist without handdrawn. (I wager that half of the animation in Wreck in Ralph was pencil sketched before final rendering, if that Eric Goldberg presentation was to be believed.

But either way, that comment was just idiotic. Ham acting in 2D animation? HELLO! I see plenty of ham acting in 3D CGI too. Something is very off here.

[Disney's Divinity]

They compared the acting style of traditional 2D animation to CG animation saying it was like comparing Vaudeville to Shakespearian acting styles.

I'd actually say the reverse would be closer to the truth.

[Kyle]

The Vaudeville and Shakespearean comparisons aren't that far off the mark if you ask me. The statement is oversimplifying things for sure, but hand drawn IS more broad and CG is capable of being more subtle just by the way they are created. Its incredibly difficult (and therefor rare) to keep hand drawn characters still and consistent enough to show as much subtleties as CG. Their lines are always shifting because drawings can never be perfect, that's part of its charm in the first place. I'm not even saying that to put hand drawn down, because personally I tend to prefer broader acting anyway in my animation. But the way CG is made makes it easier to, say, make a character's eye's tear up, without having a tear actually form and fall down the face. Little things like that affect each medium's acting styles.

Its not that you cant be subtle in hand drawn or that CG cant be broad, but overall that's whats done because it's easier to do.

That said, I don't see this as a good reason to sideline hand drawn.

[JTurner]

The Vaudeville and Shakespearean comparisons aren't that far off the mark if you ask me. The statement is oversimplifying things for sure, but hand drawn IS more broad and CG is capable of being more subtle just by the way they are created. Its incredibly difficult (and therefor rare) to keep hand drawn characters still and consistent enough to show as much subtleties as CG. Their lines are always shifting because drawings can never be perfect, that's part of its charm in the first place. I'm not even saying that to put hand drawn down, because personally I tend to prefer broader acting anyway in my animation. But the way CG is made makes it easier to, say, make a character's eye's tear up, without having a tear actually form and fall down the face. Little things like that affect each medium's acting styles.

Its not that you cant be subtle in hand drawn or that CG cant be broad, but overall that's whats done because it's easier to do.

That said, I don't see this as a good reason to sideline hand drawn.

Agreed, although I don't see Disney as sidelining handdrawn altogether if the upcoming shorts are any indication.

[DisneyJedi]

Yeah. And Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh's releases (at all) say something, showing that 2D animation is far from done, even if the former was released less than four years ago and the latter less than two years ago. Not to mention Paperman, which technically IS a hybrid animation film, thank you very much!

[Kyle]

Agreed, although I don't see Disney as sidelining handdrawn altogether if the upcoming shorts are any indication.

There are no plans to do a hand drawn feature any time soon, that's being side lined. Didn't say its dead, but clearly its not a priority.

And Jedi, just acknowledging that the fact that frog and Pooh were years ago doesn't make them relevant now. A lot can and has changed in the past 4 years, repeating the same point ad nauseam doesn't help or say much about the hand drawn thriving.
It'd be like someone saying "Take a shower, you're starting to stink" and you just keep repeating "but I just took one two weeks ago."
"Yeah... and?"

[SWillie!]

Obviously the comment isn't true, but there's a couple different truths here. First and foremost, subtlety in acting isn't dictated by the medium, it's dictated by the animator. A skilled 2d animator can potentially have just as many subtleties in their work as a CG animator. That said, Kyle is right that a certain amount of subtlety that is extremely difficult to achieve in 2d and requires an amazingly gifted animator like Glen Keane is easier to reach in CG. Saying that you haven't seen a single CG character be as subtle as anything in 2d is just flat out wrong. Stuff like the tiniest little eye darts, stuff like licking the inside of lips in Wreck it Ralph... That kind of stuff is certainly possible in 2d, but you just don't see it as often because it takes a much more talented animator to do so than it does in CG.

But regardless, that is of course an awful, awful reason to justify wanting to stick with CG. Don't pretend like you're concerned about the performance of the animators when you're only concerned about the money the CG films bring in.

[Disney's Divinity]

Obviously the comment isn't true, but there's a couple different truths here. First and foremost, subtlety in acting isn't dictated by the medium, it's dictated by the animator.

I was starting to think I wouldn't agree with you on anything ever again. I was thinking in my head that animation, in general, is less subtle currently, but I thought it was more to do with the quality of the animators possibly not being on the same level as those in Walt's era? Or a drifting down in quality, anyway.

But it also depends on what you mean by "subtle." I find many animated films right now, particularly 3D (since that is what's popular now), have their characters over-act everything.

[DisneyJedi]

Well, it doesn't take an idiot to know that the profits any movies of theirs brings in is all that the Disney company gives a shit about. At least at the parks, their chief concern is to make sure that the guests have the best vacation of their life.

[JTurner]

Agreed, although I don't see Disney as sidelining handdrawn altogether if the upcoming shorts are any indication.

There are no plans to do a hand drawn feature any time soon, that's being side lined. Didn't say its dead, but clearly its not a priority.

I never said Disney was planning another handdrawn feature, don't get me wrong. But Bob Iger also said he didn't rule it out either, and as long as they're still doing shorts with handdrawn techniques, fine with me. If we're going to see future "handdrawn" films look like Paperman, fine with me.

But regardless, that is of course an awful, awful reason to justify wanting to stick with CG. Don't pretend like you're concerned about the performance of the animators when you're only concerned about the money the CG films bring in.

Absolutely. It's almost as if Disney's shareholders are more concerned about making a quick buck instead of creativity or taking bold risks.

Although, if there comes a point when handdrawn animation is once again viable (e.g. other studios creating a successful mainstream animated film), I see Disney jumping on it again. I don't see handdrawn animation going away for good.

In fact, according to a Jim Hill article at Huffington Post about the upcoming Mickey Mouse short, there were some quotes that Hill said that kept me intrigued. The link is here, but here are some quotes that had me interested:

So instead of condemning Disney for seeming to abandon hand-drawn animated features (which -- from what I hear -- really isn't the case. Lasseter still thinks that there's an audience & an appetite out there for these kinds of films. It's just that -- for today's audiences -- hand-drawn has to be reinvented in such a way that it then looks new & different. Which will hopefully then be enough to excite people into buying tickets for these types of animated films again. Hence WDAS' experiments like last year's "Paperman" short. Which married hand-drawn's linework to CG's ease of use)...I just wish it were possible to have a non emotional, actual adult conversation about the whole hand-drawn situation these days. But instead, you have things like that faux memorial service that Cartoon Brew is planning on holding at Comic Con where people are supposed to go in and mourn the passing of hand-drawn animation. Which -- I think, anyway -- would be hugely insulting to the tons of people in the animation industry (who -- admittedly -- mostly work in television) who still work in 2D. People don't want to have an in-depth, intelligent conversation about this issue. They just want to be overly dramatic and say things like "Disney is turning its back on that Studio's heritage." When that's really not what's going on here at all.

http://jimhillmedia.com/editor_in_chief ... YW_u82-JDE