Well, I'm a bit late to the party, but that is the worst quote from Catmull yet... Deflecting the blame to the directors. Just not cool.
I know. Ed is such a nincompoop or a wimp! In fact, I'm sorry, but he and John Lasseter are total wimps! They're not being honest, and they always say they don't know hand drawn animation is coming back or not. What a bunch of cowards. It's like they're betraying hand drawn animation, because of those executives. I know it's business right now, but, I think the executives business stinks! Like I said, if Bob Iger is so smart, he should fire those executives long ago. But sadly, Bob Iger is not that bright.
I'm not saying their evil or greedy, but they are a bunch of cowards.
Last edited by TsWade2 on Sat Aug 09, 2014 7:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thing is, unless your specifically looking at Disney Animation, or mainstream US studios in general, 2D is still plenty thriving, and isn't dead (or "power napping") at all. Indie animators like Bill Plympton are still working in traditional animation, and plenty of 2D features are being produced in Japan (outside of the stereotypical, Otaku-pandering stuff) and France, as well as other countries, especially in Europe. I understand the want to see a new Disney feature that's traditionally animated (I would like to as well), but there is enough 2D work being done that I think most people are bound to find something that they'd enjoy.
The director of an indie hand-drawn animated feature called Dawgtown, who is currently seeking funding, talks about why he chose this medium for his film.
Q: Why a traditionally animated cartoon?
Justin Murphy: Even though Pixar and Dreamworks have made some great films over the years, there’s a coldness in CG animation that I find very unappealing. It does wonders with backgrounds and effects, but the characters always seem a little plastic. Hand-drawn animation has a look about that is warmer, and maybe that’s because of the imperfect human touch. Also, from a strictly budgetary point of view, a low budget hand-drawn feature looks 100 times better than a low budget CG feature. Ever seen some of those direct-to-video CG movies? They’re horrible. CG costs a lot more money to do right, and that is why the average Pixar movie costs $200 Million. On the other hand, look at The Triplets of Belleville made by French filmmaker Silvain Chomet for only $7 Million. It looks amazing. Ironically, technology had made traditional animation more affordable for the indie filmmaker than CG. Lastly, I like to draw. CG is more like digital puppetry, whereas with traditional the animator must draw each frame of movement. They are completely different approaches to the medium.
Q: What do you think traditional animation brings to an audience that computer animation can’t?
Justin Murphy: Diversity of style. Most CG films are starting to look the same, and it is easier to design characters and backgrounds in the 2D world that look distinct and unique. A lot of this has to do with line quality, and since CG has no outlines, it lacks that advantage. Just compare something like The Powerpuff Girls (with their thick black outlines) to Beauty & the Beast (with its soft colored outlines) and you can see the extreme difference in style. With traditional animation, the viewer is looking at hand-drawn art, but with CG the viewer is looking at a computer model. It’s a huge difference in medium and style, and that is why, no matter how much money it makes, CG will never fully replace traditional animation. It’s like trying to replace watercolors with oils; some people just prefer watercolors. Disney may have closed down their department and fired some of the most talented animators in the industry, but hand-drawn is still thriving on television and in the foreign and indie film markets. What’s great is now we have no competition because all the major studios have gone CG. There’s also an experienced talent pool available now who before would have been exclusively contracted at Disney and Dreamworks. Many of them still want to draw and indie filmmakers like myself are providing the opportunity. CG is overused these days, in both animation as well as live action. It’s a powerful tool, and necessary at times (I use it some in Dawgtown) but it’s not the only tool.
Justin Murphy: Like the comics world, animation is a pretty small community, especially when it comes to hand-drawn, so yes, I’ve had to play catch-up by getting to know many of the people I’ve read about in the Disney books for years (thank you Facebook). What’s great is how supportive they are. They don’t look down on me because I never worked at Disney. They really respect what I’m trying to do with Dawgtown because they truly love the tradition of hand-drawn animation, and don’t want to see it die. Some of them knew old legends like Frank and Ollie, and I’m sure they are saddened by the wealth of knowledge and personal mentoring that have now disappeared into a CG void. I predict in twenty years, very few people will have the skills to create hand-drawn animation. Here’s hoping the schools will continue to teach it, but with the jobs disappearing, many young animators are forced to go the CG route for their own survival. I understand it, but I don’t like it at all.
On a positive note, because of the overabundance of CG, hand-drawn animation is finally starting to get respect as a high-art form. Just look at the films of Silvain Chomet and tell me that isn’t art? His work is amazing in its subtlety and beauty, and everywhere I go I promote films like ‘The Triplets of Belleville’, ‘The Illusionist’ and Tomm Moore’s ‘Secret of Kells’. Europe is doing a great job carrying the torch for hand-drawn feature animation. I’m hoping to rekindle a tiny spark in the US if possible.
Am I the only person who doesn't find computer animation to be "cold" and who doesn't think all CG animated films look the same?
I think computer animation has evolved to a point where it can be just as responsible for creating beautiful imagery and wonderfully animated characters as hand-drawn. Just last year, I was really impressed with how Mary Katherine was animated in "Epic." Jeff Gabor animated her with an amazing fluidity, while also displaying the necessary ticks and nuances to allow her to stand out as something special. She didn't come off plastic at all, in my opinion. Ditto Eep from The Croods, who had a rough feel that I really admired.
And I'm not sure how somebody can watch, say, Despicable Me 2, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2, The Croods, Monsters University and Frozen back-to-back and say they all look alike. That's what I love about the current animation scene (aside from maybe the lack of variety in mediums). All of the major studios are utilising their own individual styles and telling stories in different ways. If Frozen had been done at, for example, Blue Sky, it would not have been the same movie at all (might even have been better, imo, but that might just be my Blue Sky fanboyism coming out). It brings to mind the classic Golden Age of Animation when the Fleischers, Disney, Warner Brothers and MGM were all doing their own thing and being creative in their own ways. I'd rather live in the animation age now than return to the 90s when Disney was mostly the big dog in American feature animation and everybody was just picking up the scraps and trying desperately to imitate them (with a couple of exceptions, e.g. The Iron Giant).
"There are two wolves and they are always fighting. One is darkness and despair. The other is light and hope. Which wolf wins? Whichever one you feed." - Casey Newton, Tomorrowland
estefan wrote: I'd rather live in the animation age now than return to the 90s when Disney was mostly the big dog in American feature animation and everybody was just picking up the scraps and trying desperately to imitate them (with a couple of exceptions, e.g. The Iron Giant).
estefan wrote: I'd rather live in the animation age now than return to the 90s when Disney was mostly the big dog in American feature animation and everybody was just picking up the scraps and trying desperately to imitate them (with a couple of exceptions, e.g. The Iron Giant).
estefan wrote:Am I the only person who doesn't find computer animation to be "cold" and who doesn't think all CG animated films look the same?
I think computer animation has evolved to a point where it can be just as responsible for creating beautiful imagery and wonderfully animated characters as hand-drawn. Just last year, I was really impressed with how Mary Katherine was animated in "Epic." Jeff Gabor animated her with an amazing fluidity, while also displaying the necessary ticks and nuances to allow her to stand out as something special. She didn't come off plastic at all, in my opinion. Ditto Eep from The Croods, who had a rough feel that I really admired.
And I'm not sure how somebody can watch, say, Despicable Me 2, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2, The Croods, Monsters University and Frozen back-to-back and say they all look alike. That's what I love about the current animation scene (aside from maybe the lack of variety in mediums). All of the major studios are utilising their own individual styles and telling stories in different ways. If Frozen had been done at, for example, Blue Sky, it would not have been the same movie at all (might even have been better, imo, but that might just be my Blue Sky fanboyism coming out). It brings to mind the classic Golden Age of Animation when the Fleischers, Disney, Warner Brothers and MGM were all doing their own thing and being creative in their own ways. I'd rather live in the animation age now than return to the 90s when Disney was mostly the big dog in American feature animation and everybody was just picking up the scraps and trying desperately to imitate them (with a couple of exceptions, e.g. The Iron Giant).
I actually agree with you on this, and I like that the animation studios have a different sort of style exactly like the Golden Age of yore, as you said. Though Disney still has a way to go with making CG "organic" but Frozen is a great start in the long and winding road in my opinion.
Disney, Pixar, Rodgers and Hammerstein, and Cinema fan
estefan wrote:Am I the only person who doesn't find computer animation to be "cold" and who doesn't think all CG animated films look the same?
I think computer animation has evolved to a point where it can be just as responsible for creating beautiful imagery and wonderfully animated characters as hand-drawn. Just last year, I was really impressed with how Mary Katherine was animated in "Epic." Jeff Gabor animated her with an amazing fluidity, while also displaying the necessary ticks and nuances to allow her to stand out as something special. She didn't come off plastic at all, in my opinion. Ditto Eep from The Croods, who had a rough feel that I really admired.
And I'm not sure how somebody can watch, say, Despicable Me 2, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2, The Croods, Monsters University and Frozen back-to-back and say they all look alike. That's what I love about the current animation scene (aside from maybe the lack of variety in mediums). All of the major studios are utilising their own individual styles and telling stories in different ways. If Frozen had been done at, for example, Blue Sky, it would not have been the same movie at all (might even have been better, imo, but that might just be my Blue Sky fanboyism coming out). It brings to mind the classic Golden Age of Animation when the Fleischers, Disney, Warner Brothers and MGM were all doing their own thing and being creative in their own ways. I'd rather live in the animation age now than return to the 90s when Disney was mostly the big dog in American feature animation and everybody was just picking up the scraps and trying desperately to imitate them (with a couple of exceptions, e.g. The Iron Giant).
I actually agree with you on this, and I like that the animation studios have a different sort of style exactly like the Golden Age of yore, as you said. Though Disney still has a way to go with making CG "organic" but Frozen is a great start in the long and winding road in my opinion.
Well, I'm a bit late to the party, but that is the worst quote from Catmull yet... Deflecting the blame to the directors. Just not cool.
I know. Ed is such a nincompoop or a wimp! In fact, I'm sorry, but he and John Lasseter are total wimps! They're not being honest, and they always say they don't know hand drawn animation is coming back or not. What a bunchIt's like they're betraying hand drawn animation, because of those executives. I know it's business right now, but, I think the executives business stinks! Like I said, if Bob Iger is so smart, he should fire those executives long ago. But sadly, Bob Iger is not that bright.
I'm not saying their evil or greedy, but they are a bunch of cowards.
How old are you? 14?
Insulting them is immature and does nothing for your cause, if it indeed can be considered one in the first place.
All of your posts sound the whinging same. Take off your bias glasses, educate yourself and then phrase your impassioned arguments properly.
estefan wrote:Am I the only person who doesn't find computer animation to be "cold" and who doesn't think all CG animated films look the same?
I think computer animation has evolved to a point where it can be just as responsible for creating beautiful imagery and wonderfully animated characters as hand-drawn. Just last year, I was really impressed with how Mary Katherine was animated in "Epic." Jeff Gabor animated her with an amazing fluidity, while also displaying the necessary ticks and nuances to allow her to stand out as something special. She didn't come off plastic at all, in my opinion. Ditto Eep from The Croods, who had a rough feel that I really admired.
And I'm not sure how somebody can watch, say, Despicable Me 2, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2, The Croods, Monsters University and Frozen back-to-back and say they all look alike. That's what I love about the current animation scene (aside from maybe the lack of variety in mediums). All of the major studios are utilising their own individual styles and telling stories in different ways. If Frozen had been done at, for example, Blue Sky, it would not have been the same movie at all (might even have been better, imo, but that might just be my Blue Sky fanboyism coming out). It brings to mind the classic Golden Age of Animation when the Fleischers, Disney, Warner Brothers and MGM were all doing their own thing and being creative in their own ways. I'd rather live in the animation age now than return to the 90s when Disney was mostly the big dog in American feature animation and everybody was just picking up the scraps and trying desperately to imitate them (with a couple of exceptions, e.g. The Iron Giant).
No, you are not. I absolutely agree with you. I wrote this just a few pages ago:
ce1ticmoon wrote:I personally think CGI (in its current state) captures organic things very well. Sure, A Bug's Life looks a bit plastic, archaic even. It undeniably has a dated look to it, as do most, if not all, CGI films from the medium's infancy. Yet, at some point, I think CGI has gotten past that (as I've already stated). The advancements the medium has made in the last decade are astounding.
And I think it's clear most animated features aren't striving for "exact realism." (I also wouldn't see the point of exact realism in animation.) Most of the stories that are told in the medium would be near impossible to replicate in live-action. Yet, I can see where you're coming from... a lot of CGI flicks until now have maintained a somewhat realistic sense of physics and more restrained movements that are reminiscent of reality. Sometimes the set-designs are more "realistic" than they need to be.
But I think we are increasingly moving away from this. Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs was mentioned, and that is a great example of a CGI film that really embraces the medium of animation (perhaps even moreso than a lot of hand-drawn features). The movements and expressions are wacky and cartoony, the designs are simple yet appealing, and the CGI itself does not have the "plastic" look of older CGI films. And that was a well-written, well-directed film to boot. It's perhaps my favorite animated film of 2009. (I definitely think it bests both PATF and Up.)
Another argument I see from detractors in regards to CGI films is that they "all look the same." But I think that animators and studios are finally starting to show us that many different styles are achievable in CGI. Personally, I think The Incredibles holds up a lot better than a lot of the animated CGI flicks from around that time because it was highly stylized. The designs had character to them... They were cartoony and didn't strive for any sense of hyper-realism. While there are still some generic and boring-looking CGI films coming out today, I think in many ways the genre is branching out and achieving unique looks. I mean look at Blue Sky's Peanuts teaser, then watch the trailers (or full films) for The LEGO Movie, Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs, Jack and the Cuckoo Clock Heart, Oblivion Island, and The Painting and tell me that they all look the same.
I won't argue that the styles in CGI films are as diverse as hand-drawn films. I don't think that's true, and we haven't reached that point yet. Perhaps it won't ever quite reach that sort of diversity. However, to say that the diversity is not there shows that people really aren't looking too far. (People could have made the same argument about hand-drawn in the 90s if all they were looking at were Disney and Don Bluth flicks.)
Has anyone seen this videogame, Child of Light, done in a handdrawn style? It looks like a moving storybook, absolutely breathtaking. If Disney did an animated movie that looked like this, I may weep for joy. It looks very different from their typical 2D style so I think people wouldn't associate it with the 'old outdated 2D handdrawn' if that's what they're worried about. Here is the website for it: http://childoflight.ubi.com/col/en-US/home/index.aspx
Disney animator Nik Ranieri, who was let go during last April's layoffs, talks about Disney abandoning 2D animation after The Princess and the Frog failed to reach studio expectations at the box office.
Nik Ranieri wrote:After The Princess and the Frog they said: “OK, well, maybe we need a different direction. Maybe it was just the merchandise. Maybe it was just the whole princess thing; it wasn’t a film that boys wanted to see” and all that stuff. Well, of course, Tangled came out and it was a huge hit and it was a princess film and she wore pink and all that, and so they started to think that maybe it was just the 2D aspect of it. But they were still unsure. Ron and John’s next film was a film called Mort. Mort had its troubles because it was based on an existing property. They tried to get the rights but the rights were basically owned by some guy that wouldn’t sell. They did all this preliminary work and everything was going great. It was going to be a stereoscopic 2D film, technology was there, everyone was working on it. It was great, I was excited. […] What happened was the guy still wouldn’t give the rights. He had all these demands “I want to have creative control!” and they said “Look, you got two weeks. We made you a good deal. Take it or leave it”. Two weeks went by. The guy said no. They walked.
Then it was up to Ron and John to come up with another picture. They had like two years to do it. In the meantime we just sat around and then it started. In that time, they started to look at more things; they started to think about it more. Ron and John were coming up with a 2D picture and every time they showed it to Lasseter, there was “Let’s try putting CG elements”, “Let’s try to do this”, “Push CG, push CG”. All that time, we were doing busy work, basically; animating 2D representations of the characters for CG films. They just tried to keep us busy until this film got going and then some of us started to train in CG but the vibe had changed. […]
They kept four of the animators. Dale [Baer], Eric [Goldberg], Alex [Kupershmidt], and Mark [Henn]. That’s it. The rest are either training or in CG or they were let go. I don’t know what happened. I knew the writing was on the wall. I remember there was a situation where John Lasseter said something about the King Candy performance. “I want more Ed Wynn, more Mad Hatter performance out of this character”. So everybody was studying and looking at footage of Ed Wynn and Mad Hatter and I said to one of the supervisors “You know, you got someone as close to Ward Kimball here as you ever going to get. Why don’t you get Eric [Goldberg] to do a lecture?” and their response was and I quote “Well, we don’t do that type of hammy acting anymore. We’re more sophisticated now.” I knew at that point my time was done. I held on because of that small hope that they were going to get this 2D picture going and I could get on to it. But after that, that was it. I don’t think that attitude is pervasive throughout the entire studio but I’m sure it wasn’t just one person who felt that way. I’m sure there were others.
Q: Do you think Disney will ever bring back traditional animation?
Nik Ranieri: Possibly, but I fear only if someone else does it first. When I left Disney, the atmosphere was one of trying to distance themselves from anything hand-drawn.
Q: Do you think Disney will ever bring this kind of hand drawn animation back?
Nik Ranieri: No, with a billion dollars from Frozen, why would they? The only way that would happen is if someone made a hand-drawn film and it made a lot of money. Then Disney would do one of two things. Either copy it or buy the company.
Good Lord! Disney needs to go back to hand drawn animation. Just because Frozen made billion dollars, doesn't mean they have to give up hand drawn animation forever.
Musical Master wrote:To quote Harvey Korman's character Ed Higgins on the Carol Burnett Show: "Oh lord would this fued ever end??"
I don't know. Maybe Disney will come to their senses like maybe fire those executives, re-hire those hand drawn animators, and make a new hand drawn animated movie like the old days. Or maybe kick Bob Iger out of the studio and hire Tom Staggs as the new CEO.
Musical Master wrote:To quote Harvey Korman's character Ed Higgins on the Carol Burnett Show: "Oh lord would this fued ever end??"
I don't know. Maybe Disney will come to their senses like maybe fire those executives, re-hire those hand drawn animators, and make a new hand drawn animated movie like the old days. Or maybe kick Bob Iger out of the studio and hire Tom Staggs as the new CEO.
Honestly, I don't see that happening in the near future; but someday it will.
Disney, Pixar, Rodgers and Hammerstein, and Cinema fan
In fact, I'm sorry, but he and John Lasseter are total wimps! They're not being honest, and they always say they don't know hand drawn animation is coming back or not. What a bunch of cowards. It's like they're betraying hand drawn animation, because of those executives. I know it's business right now, but, I think the executives business stinks! 
Like I said, if Bob Iger is so smart, he should fire those executives long ago. But sadly, Bob Iger is not that bright.
I really think with this generation dying for 2D, 2D will come back when we're old enough to have power
That is so adorable. I want one! 
