Hand-Drawn Animation Dead at Disney

[TsWade2]

I want to apologize for giving John Lasseter a death threat for getting rid of 2D. It's not worth it. Just rest assure that hand drawn will always be in the Disney Studios. Even though I'm still waiting for them to make a 2D hand drawn or hybrid animated movie of Mickey Mouse. And make a series out of it for kids of all ages.

[tweeb²]

For what I read about CGI animation, its not that is easier as a whole, but that there are some things that are kind of semi-automatic so that the animators can focus on other things.

For example the proportions of the body & face are pretty much standard and the computer controls them, that in fact, was a little issue they had to adress in order to have that "stretch & squash" felling that 2D has and that gives you a really good illusion of movement.

with 2D, if you make a mistake, even in a single frame, everyone is going to notice that the head gets bigger or that the eyes swim around the face, so in that regard is better to control. Also, you have no inbetweens, so you don't have to have huge crews of 400 artists per movie, and the goal in Pixar with the new software is to have around 100 ppl in each new film.

So, yeah, I think thats why they all think CG is more appealing, because you have more control over the artist crew, and thus, over the finished product, that's at least my opinion.

About John Lasseter, almost every single one thinks he is the devil in mention, but I think he seems like a nice guy and that he wants 2D to get back on its feet, not just him, almost every single interview I've seen with Pete Docter, Andrew Stanton or Brad Bird, they want artist to draw and to know about the 2D medium, the thing is that shareholders and the true guys at power in Disney are blinded by the new medium, I'm sure that if they let it breathe a little bit, they will give it another chance.

For 2D to be strong, it takes just one film, even if its not american, to realise about that. As someone in here said earlier, people still like Sponge Bob and Phinneas and Fherb, so my guess is that is not dead, maybe with the Paperman software everyone says that old 2D is kind of "the thing" going on, in a few years time.

[FlyingPiggy]

I just hate that format is being blamed and not the quality of the films, again. PATF wasn't a very good or very successful movie (for Disney) so what do they do? Kill traditional again, and let the directors (who at this point have 3 dubs in a row) make another film. Huh? [/i]

TP&TF made back its cost, with some small profit, while also setting the ground for large merchandise opportunities (from here until the end of the DP line). In regards to the film itself, I wonder how much the uppers leaned on M&C, considering how often the film seemed to change after every complaint of racism over concept art/details. The only real negative on Musker and Clement's records is Treasure Planet; there were some huge missteps there, which are surprising considering how much they wanted to do that film.

Regardless, they still were responsible for Mermaid and Aladdin, legitimate classics that Disney has a hard time recreating these days (although Aladdin does seem to be getting a bit of a cold shoulder from Disney these days). If WIR ends up doing less than expected, perhaps Tangled will be looked upon as much of a fluke as Lilo & Stitch--although I do expect WIR to do well; it has all the trademarks of what's current atm. I wonder--if M&C were to make a 3D film (or, rather, if they were forced to, similar to Frozen), if they would recapture that same financial success.

Hercules was a small success - and is now largely ignored by Disney
Treasure Planet was a colossal failure
PATF was a small success and was guaranteed some merchandise success (some, Tangled/Rapunzel has done much better in that department) due to the fact it features the first black Disney lead ever, and a princess one at that.

Disney doesn't like smalls, they like huge sweeping successes. So, from my point of view, three duds in a row.


Yes they did have they movie messed with by the higher ups. And a lot of that was unfair (*cough* Randy Newman *cough* John Lasseter) and in the end it was silly to make choking decisions due to racism, because the movie still ended up fairly racist. Shockingly, two 50 year old white men lack some sensativity on the issue. Nonetheless, the movies story issues went deeper then all that, and were the same kind of issues Hercules and TP had.

But they get another movie, and John Lasseter refuses to take responsibility for his bad decisions and instead kills 2D. Lovely.

[ajmrowland]

y'know, I have largely a hard time identifying the story issues that PATF went through, aside from making Tiana totally misunderstand Mama Odie's Song and having the "love song" be before that.

[DisneyAnimation88]

But they get another movie, and John Lasseter refuses to take responsibility for his bad decisions and instead kills 2D. Lovely.

Just so I understand here, what exactly were John Lasseter's bad decisions that he refuses to take responsibility for? Hand-drawn animation was dead when he took over WDAS with Ed Catmull and one of the first things they did was greenlight a 2D film so I don't see how he "killed" it when he actually brought it back from the dead; where the medium goes from here is up in the air and could be tied to the success of Paperman but at least Lasseter gave it a shot with the best directors and animators in the business. I'm used to the Lasseter-bashing whenever this debate comes up these days but I still don't understand or agree with a lot of it.

[DisneyEra]

We must keep in mind that WDA has only released 4 CGI films in the last 7 years! Dinosaur was with live-action, so it does not count as full CGI. But lets review the 4:

Chicken Little 2005: BO Gross: $320,432,837
The company's 1st CGI film. This film was to prove to everyone that Disney can adapt to the modern CGI era where as Pixar & Dreamworks did. The film got bad reviews from the critics & fans. There was no way Disney would survive in the CGI era if this was the best they could do.

Meet the Robinsons 2007: BO Gross: $169,333,034
While this film was critically acclaimed, it did worse at the BO than CL! It was here that they were some issues at Disney when it came to CGI.

Bolt 2008: BO Gross: $309,979,994
This was suppose to be Chis Saunders American Dog, but he was removed & the film was changed to Bolt. Disney went with big stars to voice the main characters, John Travolta & Disney Channel star Miley Cyrus. While it was an improvment over Robinsons, it did worse than CL.
3 CGI films in & Disney was no where near its rivals.

The funny thing is, look at PatF Gross in 2009: $267,045,765
PatF outgrossed Robinsons by $98mil!

Bolt only made $42mil more & CL made $53mil more! And considering that the budgets to Robinsons & CL were higher than PatF, 2D clearly was not the problem, it was Disney's CGI films!

But all that changed when Tangled came out in 2010! BO Gross:
$590,721,936

For the first time Disney finally had a true CGI hit! I believe this film was a make or break film for the studio. So many years, rewrites, money & changes were made, this was the film that proved Disney was now a major player in CGI, along with Pixar, Dreamworks & Fox! This film is also the ONLY reason why Frozen is being made as we speak!

As for 2D, it all comes down to the mainstream audiance! You have an entire generation of kids who grew-up on Toy Story & Shrek! To them Disney 2D films are old & have no connection with them. I'm in my 30s now, I grew up with Disney classics & Don Bluth films. CGI will never replace the 2D classics I grew-up with, but this is a generational gap.
When the Chipmunk sequeal outgrossed PatF in Dec 2009, that was proof that kids & mainstream audiences didn't want 2D anymore. That film connected with them that PatF couldn't do, its a generational thing, that's all! And Disney isn't gonna release new 2D films, while their rivals release sequeals to their past CGI hits, & the mainstream will not except them!
I do believe that a new 2D film will come from Disney, but not now. If Disney wants to compete in this CGI era, it must follow up Tangled. And their future looks bright: Wreck-it Ralph, Frozen & Big Hero 6! All those films to me are more interesting than anything their rivals have coming out, including Pixar.

When it comes to Mickey Mouse, Disney should do some new shorts! That's what Mickey is famous for, his shorts! Plane Crazy, Steambout Willie, The Mad Doctor, Lonesome Ghosts, Brave Little Tailor, Lend a Paw & 1995's Runaway Brain! Doing some modern shorts of Mickey would be the right thing to do, & a good way to get 2D back into Mainstream contention with the comapany's icon! Mickey in CGI just wouldn't work, nor would a feature-lenth film! An entire film of Mickey just won't work. Walt never did it, & no one from this era at Disney could do it.

[Kraken Guard]

To them Disney 2D films are old & have no connection with them.

That, I will disagree with. Many of the 2D films, like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, Aladdin and the Lion King come to mind. It's impossible to say that 2D films are old and no one will have a connection to them, because.

... Well, seriously. These are films people know and love, regardless of generation. As I said: It would be impossible to call these films 'Old' and say that no one will have no connection with them.

If we ARE in such a world, then... My gosh...

[TsWade2]

It seems that Lasseter doesn't practice what he preaches about some other things as well:

It seems to me that because of one post about how he has "shied away" from traditional animation, you are completely disregarding everything else that is happening at the studio.

1. Pixar and WDAS are director-driven studios.

And are they not? In Steve's post, the same artist discussed that they were working on the three idea pitch that Lasseter has always stood behind. "Director-driven" does not mean "directors have the final say in every matter whatsoever."

2. It's about the story, not the medium / In defence of 2D animation

And again, is it not? The fact that 2D is not supported by executives above him will not change the fact that he will always push the artists to develop the best story they possibly can.

You seem to be leading the bandwagon here of ignoring the fact that Lasseter has plenty of people above him to please, for the sole purpose of making him look bad.

Hand-drawn animation lives within the Walt Disney Animation Studios.

I'm sorry, it doesn't?? If asked today, Lasseter would say the same exact thing. Because hand drawn animation DOES live within Walt Disney Animation Studios. This was confirmed by the same person who started this whole debacle:

Ron Clements and John Musker are developing a hand-drawn feature that, if what I've been shown holds up, will look one hell of a lot different from Show White.

The fact that it will "look different" has no bearing on this argument. Hand drawn animation is happening at WDAS as we speak. See Paperman in a few weeks for proof.

Again, you're all ignoring this hybrid. It doesn't matter that it's different. The fact is that hand drawn animation IS a big part of it. There are no completely traditional films happening because not enough artists want to do a completely traditional film! They want to see where this exciting new thing is going to lead!

regarding the "story is king" mantra, that's never actually been applied to the commercial success of a movie has it?

Actually, you're right. "Story is king" is in reference to the quality and integrity of a film, not the visuals. It seems most think that "Story is king" literally equals "the medium does not matter." It does not mean the same thing.

Here here!

[SWillie!]

To them Disney 2D films are old & have no connection with them.

yeah, while I do agree with most of what you've said, having worked at Disney World I can tell you that the classics are still very well known by young children today.

[Super Aurora]

Personally, I don't think audiences today dislike the traditional animated look. After all, isn't Phineas & Ferb the most popular show among young viewers right now? Other shows like The Legend of Korra, SpongeBob SquarePants and Gravity Falls also score high ratings. Not to mention the incredible success of The Lion King re-release.

Looking at the two hand-drawn films that Disney made, I think they're under-performed because of the marketing. Most boys aren't going to watch something with "princess" in the title (I think The Frog Prince would have been a better title and more logical, since Tiana is only a princess for about three minutes at the very end). And Winnie the Pooh's reputation has changed a lot in the last decade, as now most people see it as only aimed at preschoolers. While they try to mark it at college students, somebody had the stupid idea to release the same day as another film from a more popular franchise that demographic grew up on. The Disney execs must have been smoking something really strong, if they thought a Winnie the Pooh movie would make $60 million in 2011.

And why is all the blame going to John Lasseter? I don't think he's a messiah to animation, but he doesn't run the Walt Disney Company. He still has his superiors he needs to answer to, who have more power to dictate what gets produced. Bob Iger has the final say over every project that gets made at Disney, not to mention there's the boardroom executives and shareholders which he also has to appease. In a couple of years, Iger will drop down from being President and maybe the new boss will be more willing to greenlight a hand-drawn animated film.

End thread/


People here not getting it that Disney has very shit marketing skills here. If want blame it on anything it's the poor-shit marketing decisions Disney corp made and poor lack of advertisement for certain films like john carter for example..

[Sotiris]

And are they not? In Steve's post, the same artist discussed that they were working on the three idea pitch that Lasseter has always stood behind. "Director-driven" does not mean "directors have the final say in every matter whatsoever."

What does it mean then? Just because artists pitch story ideas does not make the studio "director-driven". They also did that back in the 90s with Jeffrey Katzenberg. Remember the gong show? But it was Jeffrey Katzenberg and Peter Schneider who micro-managed and made most of the creative decisions. It seems that things haven't really changed since then. Regardless if this approach is successful or not, calling the studio "filmmaker-driven" is hardly accurate.

The fact that 2D is not supported by executives above him will not change the fact that he will always push the artists to develop the best story they possibly can. You seem to be leading the bandwagon here of ignoring the fact that Lasseter has plenty of people above him to please, for the sole purpose of making him look bad.

Lasseter only reports to Bog Iger and Alan Horn. And before Alan Horn was recently appointed, he didn't even report to the previous chairman of WDS, Rich Ross. Considering his influential position within the company, I don't think if Lasseter really wanted to make another hand-drawn film, anyone would stop him.

The fact that it will "look different" has no bearing on this argument. Hand drawn animation is happening at WDAS as we speak. See Paperman in a few weeks for proof.

It does. This new hybrid technique is basically a more advanced and sophisticated form of rotoscoping and cel-shading. The animation is clearly driven by CG. Having said that, "Paperman" looks great and has a hand-drawn feel to it. But that doesn't mean that it can/should replace traditional hand-drawn animation. Why does it have to be the one or the other anyway? Why can't they pursue both?

I would love to see this hybrid form in a feature but at the moment there's no guarantee that this will happen. Ron and John's film has not been greenlit yet, the medium used is still not set in stone, and the final result may not even resemble "Paperman" in its hand-drawn sensibilities. So, we'll just have to wait and see.

There are no completely traditional films happening because not enough artists want to do a completely traditional film.

While I am sure that there's excitement for this new hybrid, I find it incredibly hard to believe that there aren't enough artists that would want to pursue a conventional hand-drawn feature as well.

[DisneyEra]

To them Disney 2D films are old & have no connection with them.

That, I will disagree with. Many of the 2D films, like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, Aladdin and the Lion King come to mind. It's impossible to say that 2D films are old and no one will have a connection to them, because.

... Well, seriously. These are films people know and love, regardless of generation. As I said: It would be impossible to call these films 'Old' and say that no one will have no connection with them.

If we ARE in such a world, then... My gosh...

Classic Disney films are beloved by all generations, they have been around for so long & are classics. Still, I don't think kids today would choose a Disney Classic over Toy Story or Cars. What I was referring to was the new 2D films, New Groove, Atlantis, Treasure Planet & Brother Bear. Those were the 2D films that came out during the boom of the CGI Era. Audiences were more impressed by Pixar & Dreamworks CGI than Disney's 2D films. 2001 was a intresting year. I was most excited for Atlantis than Shrek & Monsters Inc.

[DisneyEra]

To them Disney 2D films are old & have no connection with them.

yeah, while I do agree with most of what you've said, having worked at Disney World I can tell you that the classics are still very well known by young children today.

This question should be asked to kids: Would you rather see a new Disney 2D film or a new Toy Story film? Or how about this: What animated film would you rather see in 2013, Pixar's Monsters U Or Disney's Frozen?

[Disney's Divinity]

Disney doesn't like smalls, they like huge sweeping successes. So, from my point of view, three duds in a row.

Sorry, but that is an extremely flawed point of view. Duds fall into the Atlantis, Treasure Planet, and The Black Cauldron variety. If Hercules had not been considered a success, Disney would never have allowed them to make TP at all.

Also, accusing M&C or TP&TF of being racist has absolutely no basis. And, before we forget, Tangled's budget was almost as huge as its profits. As for Tangled's merchandise doing better? We already know the public tends to be ethnocentric--white girls don't want black dolls, which is the saddest part.

There are no completely traditional films happening because not enough artists want to do a completely traditional film.

While I am sure that there's excitement for this new hybrid, I find it incredibly hard to believe that there aren't enough artists that would want to pursue a hand-drawn feature as well.

I agree, that statement is ridiculous. I have no doubt that artists enjoy working with new technology, but to speak on behalf of all animators and say none of them even want to do a traditionally animated film is absurd. It's also possible that the animators who would have wanted to do a traditionally animated film have since been fired after WtP.

@DisneyEra: Very good post. Of their CG films, only one has been successful, and yet somehow the medium is more considered more profitable for them. That's clearly looking at the market and not their own output and BO returns. Disney films in general, regardless of medium, hadn't really done well until Tangled came along. Maybe they should blame their stories, marketing, etc. instead of always scapegoating the medium.

[jazzflower92]

Disney doesn't like smalls, they like huge sweeping successes. So, from my point of view, three duds in a row.

Sorry, but that is an extremely flawed point of view. Duds fall into the Atlantis, Treasure Planet, and The Black Cauldron variety. If Hercules had not been considered a success, Disney would never have allowed them to make TP at all.

Also, accusing M&C or TP&TF of being racist has absolutely no basis. And, before we forget, Tangled's budget was almost as huge as its profits. As for Tangled's merchandise doing better? We already know the public tends to be ethnocentric--white girls don't want black dolls, which is the saddest part.

I kinda of disagree Princess Tiana seems to really be popular with all kinds of girls.And I am not making this up because she seems to actually have a lot of little girls of races who love her.

[FlyingPiggy]

But they get another movie, and John Lasseter refuses to take responsibility for his bad decisions and instead kills 2D. Lovely.

Just so I understand here, what exactly were John Lasseter's bad decisions that he refuses to take responsibility for? Hand-drawn animation was dead when he took over WDAS with Ed Catmull and one of the first things they did was greenlight a 2D film so I don't see how he "killed" it when he actually brought it back from the dead; where the medium goes from here is up in the air and could be tied to the success of Paperman but at least Lasseter gave it a shot with the best directors and animators in the business. I'm used to the Lasseter-bashing whenever this debate comes up these days but I still don't understand or agree with a lot of it.

That he didn't understand Disney was DISNEY and not his personal Pixar 2.0 studio when he first got there and was forcing his personal tastes (i.e. Randy Newman) onto projects.

"He’s really John Lasseter. He is not Walt Disney and it’s good that way, because there’s only one Walt Disney and one John Lasseter, but I’ve known John Lasseter since he was eighteen, a long time. John has created a studio that represents his spirit. And Walt Disney has created– There are differences between Pixar and Disney. If you reduced Pixar to a phrase it would be: “Wouldn’t it be cool if?”
Like if a kid was looking at their toy: What if the toy could talk? All their films are like this.
If you reduced the Disney films it would be: “Once upon a time…”
There is big difference. “Once upon a time” it’s make believe. It’s the atmosphere we breathe in the two studios and John is president of both but for the first couple of years it was a constant fight for him to accept that Disney is not Pixar. They’re completely different. Now he’s started to respect the differences between the two. It’s important to realize Disney is Disney, Pixar is Pixar. And John is John and Walt is Walt."

- Glen Kean

The first few films put out under his reign reflect this. The amount of talent leaving the studio reflects this. And though he may have changed how he does things at Disney now, Tangled was amazing (he (JL) was also working on Car 2 during that so, I think that film got more room to breathe) Ralph looks solid, Paperman's new style is wowing. But crap, look where the first few years landed 2D.

And another thing, he splits his time between Pixar and Disney. That must be a little annoying for the workers at both places, to have the overlord who must okay what you're working on gone half the time. But then I guess he'd have to give up his control over the parks and he looves his control over the parks

[FlyingPiggy]

Disney doesn't like smalls, they like huge sweeping successes. So, from my point of view, three duds in a row.

Sorry, but that is an extremely flawed point of view. Duds fall into the Atlantis, Treasure Planet, and The Black Cauldron variety. If Hercules had not been considered a success, Disney would never have allowed them to make TP at all.

Also, accusing M&C or TP&TF of being racist has absolutely no basis. And, before we forget, Tangled's budget was almost as huge as its profits. As for Tangled's merchandise doing better? We already know the public tends to be ethnocentric--white girls don't want black dolls, which is the saddest part.

The fact Disney's first black princess spent most of her time on screen as a frog has unfortunate racial implications. All the other princesses got to be human thought out their whole movies.
The depicting of voodoo in the movie has been called racist, I don't know enough about it honestly.

Sorry, but that is an extremely flawed point of view. Duds fall into the Atlantis, Treasure Planet, and The Black Cauldron variety. If Hercules had not been considered a success, Disney would never have allowed them to make TP at all.

Also, accusing M&C or TP&TF of being racist has absolutely no basis. And, before we forget, Tangled's budget was almost as huge as its profits. As for Tangled's merchandise doing better? We already know the public tends to be ethnocentric--white girls don't want black dolls, which is the saddest part.

I kinda of disagree Princess Tiana seems to really be popular with all kinds of girls.And I am not making this up because she seems to actually have a lot of little girls of races who love her.

I didn't mean to imply she's unpopular, she isn't, lots of kids/people of all background like her. I just think her popularity has more to do with the fact she was a looong awaited for addition (and her awesome dress). I feel she'd be even more popular on top of that if her movie was more successful. (like Rapunzel, who also had some level of guaranteed success being Rapunzel)

[qindarka]

The fact Disney's first black princess spent most of her time on screen as a frog has unfortunate racial implications. All the other princesses got to be human thought out their whole movies.
The depicting of voodoo in the movie has been called racist, I don't know enough about it honestly.

I think that's looking too much into it. There was clearly no malice intended.

[Disney's Divinity]

The fact Disney's first black princess spent most of her time on screen as a frog has unfortunate racial implications. All the other princesses got to be human thought out their whole movies.

This could only be considered racist if you're really stretching for an excuse to call Disney racist (although they have been in the past). The voodoo part has more ground, by possibly implying that all black people believe in voodoo, but I don't really see it as racist, again, unless you're stretching it. It was really just an excuse to give Odie and Facilier magic powers, which is for the better, imo.

[FlyingPiggy]

The fact Disney's first black princess spent most of her time on screen as a frog has unfortunate racial implications. All the other princesses got to be human thought out their whole movies.
The depicting of voodoo in the movie has been called racist, I don't know enough about it honestly.

I think that's looking too much into it. There was clearly no malice intended.

Right, they clearly had no ill intent but, ill intent isn't needed.