« Previous | Ain't too proud to blog | mail it | Next »


Posted: 08.27.2003
Kiss traditional animation goodbye
This entry was written by a guest-blogger -- my husband Todd. Enjoy:


This is what I call "disturbing news". A mistake is about to be made. A fork in the road of history is about to be reached. And to be honest, I'm not sure there is anything we can do about it.

Word is that Disney will be closing the door on traditional 2-D animation in the coming months, and if you were an employee in the animation studios, you were either told to drop your pen and paintbrush and pick up a computer, or you were shown the door.

Traditional animators are a dying breed in the new 3-D culture at Walt Disney, as Michael Eisner declares that "2-D is dead". Eisner has panicked given the poor box office that movies like Atlantis and Treasure Planet, for example, have shown. Disney has two traditional animated features in the pipeline for the coming year, Brother Bear and Home on the Range. Those are expected to be the last feature films featuring 2-D hand-drawn animation that Disney produces.

The same thing is happening at Dreamworks, where Jeffery Katzenberg had, in the past, made it his mission to reinvent classical animation. Well, after Katzenberg had flops of his own in Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas and Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron (I guess every Dreamworks title has to be subtitled...), he too is panicking and beginning to focus exclusively on computer animated features.

What probably didn't help these gentlemen in their irrational thought processes is that Pixar studios, makers of the excellent Toy Story films, A Bug's Life and Monsters Inc. just had a tremendous box office smash hit with the computer animated Finding Nemo.

What they failed to realize through visions of dollar signs dancing in their heads, is that although Pixar is a CG studio, it is first and foremost a teller of compelling stories. And therein lies the fatal error that Disney and Dreamworks have yet to discover.

Take a look at the film that won the inaugural Oscar for Best Animated Feature - Hayao Miyazaki's Spirited Away. This feature was almost entirely hand drawn, painstakingly, over a process of several years. Miyazaki himself is intimately involved with every frame of his films, and the quality shows. He has been rewarded for it.

But there is something more sinister at work here, and that is the potential loss of an art form so that these animation houses can continue to churn out low quality stories in order to sell more cross merchandised junk. It started to happen sometime not long ago. The studios became more interested in selling you the toys, clothes, and food items that were branded with the films name, than actually telling you a story.

The problems with the traditional animated studios are deep here in the U.S. Above and beyond the inability within the last five years to put together a film that actually tells a story that is worth seeing, one of the biggest errors that animated film producers have made recently is an asinine use of Hollywood film actors to voice the characters of their animated fare instead of hiring voice talent that's trained to do that kind of work. Why are Brad Pitt and Michael J. Fox and Catherine Zeta-Jones doing voice work? They aren't voice actors. They're just actors, and often poor ones at that. I have found famous voices distracting in animated features for years, and voiced that opinion regularly. The quality of the voice acting has gone down since the early 90s when films like Aladdin and The Little Mermaid served as a renaissance for Disney.

3-D animation continues to look fake as well. There is something distracting in it visually that I can't place my finger on yet, and I can't quite suspend disbelief at times. Granted, a compelling story will help alleviate this a great deal, but aside from Pixar and Dreamworks' Shrek (which could have been a lot better than it was), no one is producing quality 3-D animated stories right now. The horrible Final Fantasy comes to mind as a computer animated film (with Hollywood voice talent) that just wasn't ready to be made, technology wise or vis-a-vis the storyline.

I feel that 3-D animation is really a novelty right now, and audiences are seeing some of these films just for the "wow" factor of "look what they can do with computers". As the audience's tolerance level matures, I suspect we will see a corresponding drop in the numbers of computer animated film revenue - so long as they cannot tell a compelling story.

Let us all hope that an art form is not lost forever as thousands of pen and paintbrush animators are kicked to the curb because of the severe lack of vision from the heads of these studios. I don't want to see all computer animated films. I suspect no one really does. What is it going to take to save traditional animation? Don Bluth jumped ship from Disney years ago and produced amazing films such as The Secret of NIMH and An American Tail, successfully challenging his former employer and forcing them to rethink their entire game. We should all hope that a star emerges from cuts at these animation studios that can rise up and again challenge them and force compelling animated stories to be told on their own merit.



Hey boy take a look at me...let me dirty up your mind...



this is something so inherently wrong with shutting down 2-d animation just because you no longer see the dollar value. or to be completely biased and stereotypical with no backing. te lack of money in their already padded pockets. sorry Robyn. I am ranting...
I agree with everything Todd has said. it's not the art form that is causing the lack, but the tripe that disney has been spewing forth over the past few years. stories without content. It is sad to know that the worlds greatest re-teller of stories has lost their ability to spin tales that capture the imagination of children in this generation and the generations to come.

¤ ¤ credit: munin | 08.27.03 at 08:34 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

I'm in agreement with the overall statement you're making, as well as with most of the specifics. (Sinbad wasn't that bad a movie, really. Kinda fluffy, but still lots of fun.)

I have nothing against 3D animation in and of itself. I think Pixar and Dreamworks have done some neat things along those lines, and even Ice Age wasn't shabby. I ALSO think that in this bottom-line oriented movie industry, art doesn't mean sh*t. They care about grosses, and they see 3D animation making big bucks while 2D work goes bust.

I weep for the proud, talented men and women who are being forced out of their livelihood. I don't, however, weep for the lack of crappy and formulaic drivel the studios are foisting on us by their hands.

So... it's kind of a mixed bag. Still, those Disney bastards can suck my left nut. Argh.

¤ ¤ credit: GreyDuck | 08.27.03 at 08:57 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

That was a great post. I love traditional animation, and I've missed it. CG has its purposes, but nothing can replace the originals in my mind. The people who drew the classics such as Peter Pan and Sleeping Beauty captured the nature of people so well because they actually studied drawing people in all their subtleties of mood. To my eye, none of the modern stories, be they about fish, fowl, or livestock, can even compare to the works of art produced from the Disney studios in years past. I too hope some of the traditional style animators can find a way to regroup and save their talent from becoming a "lost art".

¤ ¤ credit: Hey Lisa | 08.27.03 at 09:00 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

I'm a little worried about this too. I doubt they will phase out 2D altogether... recently, most traditional-looking animation has been altered digitally anyways, so I hope they mean they're just phasing out ink-and-paint.

The list of layoffs is disturbing. They've laid off people that have been there for 30-40 years. Dumb move.

Kinda related note to Todd: I sent you an email a while back about those Miyazaki dubs... do you still want them?

¤ ¤ credit: courtney | 08.27.03 at 09:05 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

Aw man, that just sucks. I mean, that's what Disney is based on. Even if they rake in billions of dollars from 3-D animation, like you said, it'll get old eventually. Preserve what's classic.

¤ ¤ credit: statia | 08.27.03 at 09:14 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

You post a strong entry... I found myself nodding to several of the things you've said...

¤ ¤ credit: Rachel in Alaska | 08.27.03 at 09:23 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

HERE! HERE! With the exception of the voice over of James Earl Jones in The Lion King I totally agree with you. The 2-D animated features since then, with the exception of Tarzan, haven't been totally 2-D and have been sub-par as far as the story and/or animation. They seem rushed. And there's no way they could keep up with the Pixar people without putting more quality and less quantity into this. Great post.

¤ ¤ credit: KB | 08.27.03 at 10:07 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

This saddens me. We know a lot of Disney animators, a few have left over the years for other jobs, helped out w/Stuart Little, Veggie Tales, etc....and have moved on to their own projects, comic books, starting their own animation companies, etc.. So maybe all isn't lost!

I'm gonna have to make some calls now.

Times like these make me homesick :(

¤ ¤ credit: Donna | 08.27.03 at 11:36 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

Whaaaaaat? The technology used in Final Fantasy was breathtaking! The CG humans in the movie were a break through. It was the most realistic CG film I've ever seen. Except when the characters moved.

But, take my opinion with a grain of salt, because I'm a huge fan of CG movies. That being said, I'm also a fan of 2-D movies. Even though Disney and Dreamworks are making the moves to go all CG, I have a feeling they'll be back to 2-D in no time once they make a few multimillion dollar CG flops. And if not, 2-D animation will make a comeback in 10 or 20 years because it will be retro.

¤ ¤ credit: theresa | 08.28.03 at 12:57 AM | link--this ¤ ¤

2-D animation may be dead at Disney, but it will still be out there...small independent films, etc.
I think Disney is missing the point, really. They don't need to kill 2D. They just need to embrace CG. There are several films out there that have a sprinkling of CG 2D animation. IIRC, "Spirit:the subtitled movie" had several scenes drawn CG, or at least hand dawn and then scanned in to CG for refinement and easing in to final production.

¤ ¤ credit: Greg | 08.28.03 at 01:22 AM | link--this ¤ ¤

Well said!

It's always about the story. Monsters, Inc. is a great movie because the story is so wonderful. It doesn't have anything to do with the 3-D'ness of it.

Tell stories people! That's your job!

¤ ¤ credit: Sunidesus | 08.28.03 at 01:30 AM | link--this ¤ ¤

I'll chime in supporting Monsters, Inc. Without story, ANY movie will suck.

It looks like we'll be watching anime, more and more, in the coming years.

¤ ¤ credit: Scott | 08.28.03 at 07:28 AM | link--this ¤ ¤

You think that if 'Finding Nemo' was a 2-D movie, it still would have done the same amount or money? I doubt it. The kids today are all about the 3-D Animation, hell - it's even on TV - why not in Movies? I too am sad to see the "death of 2-d" animation, I enjoyed 'Treasure Planet' with my son (who also loved it)...but all good things must come to an end.

¤ ¤ credit: Zaldor | 08.28.03 at 09:03 AM | link--this ¤ ¤

Disney's storytelling has sucked for years. Walt is surely growling, and begging St. Peter to let him haunt Michael Eisner's mansion!

Instead of laying off animators, Disney should be hiring writers. Real writers. Not monkeys.

¤ ¤ credit: Michael | 08.28.03 at 11:49 AM | link--this ¤ ¤

This truly and utterly breaks my heart.

The Little Mermaid was the first movie I ever saw in the theatre. I was 7 years old.

Disney movies were a vital part of my growing up, and to rid themselves of 2-D animation is a travesty.

¤ ¤ credit: Stacey | 08.28.03 at 12:32 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

I think they'll all come to their senses soon. Maybe 3d is cheaper and faster to produce, but in the long run it's going to come down to storyline and the writing. *That's* what made "Shrek" and "Toy Story" the blockbusters that they were.

2d will always be alive and well in flash movies on the web, I'm happy to say.

... and there's STILL the Cartoon Network and Boomerang.

Take away 2d animation?
From my cold, dead fingers, pal!!!!

¤ ¤ credit: -=e=- | 08.28.03 at 01:50 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

Let's see a good 2-d movie get put out now; the talent may become available, and SOMEONE has to have a story the quality of Monsters, Inc. out there waiting to be told...

Let's see what the Disney etc. management thinks about that... :-)

¤ ¤ credit: Alan | 08.28.03 at 01:53 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

Your appreciations regarding this stupidity by Disney are as accurate as they can be. The neglect of the storytelling, and the extreme attention to computer-generated images, though, seems to stem from identifying that as their strength and thus justifying an even bigger investment.
The issue is then the profit-driven mentality that can allow them to distance from their core business, storytelling, to focus instead on technology as their answer. Desperate, useless measures.
As Michael (fitting name) says, they have to hire writers, to put out a better quality product.

¤ ¤ credit: Camilo | 08.29.03 at 08:55 AM | link--this ¤ ¤

Give the man a blog, he'd put it to good use even if he only wrote something like this once a month.

Heartilly agree with you on all points Todd.

¤ ¤ credit: D | 08.29.03 at 10:00 AM | link--this ¤ ¤

Some 2D TV shows are made with 3D means: i.e., South Park, Dr. Katz, Home Movies... the list goes on.

As mentioned by other posters above, story is what matters. With a good story, the type of animation is trivial.

Not all hope is lost :)

¤ ¤ credit: courtney | 08.29.03 at 12:17 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

Story is always the key element to any kind of film and this is always the most difficult part. Studios tend towards what they envision as probable recoupment and profit generators. Ergo the formula film, the spin-off and the francise sequels....as well as the poor remakes of past classics.

2D is quite expensive to do well. Every frame (or so) has to be drawn and this is one of the reasons that CGI and Flash are attractive. You build a library of characters (like puppets) and you can use them not just for the current film, but for every sequel or episode. Build once and use many times. This makes it cheaper (were it not for the expensive voice talent marquee names).

I like 3D and I love 2D, but what really works best is when story meshes with design in some marvellous or awesome way....something that has meaning. It may also be that audiences increasingly expect too much action hits and cannot sit still for things that have human depth....just a thought....

Erkison

¤ ¤ credit: Erkison | 08.29.03 at 01:45 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

A sad case of literally 'losing the plot' - look for a major Disney downsize soon. Not that they're wrong in following the digital path that all media must now tread (Simpsons, anyone?), but their creative input will be down to one or two corporate character developers producing the same bland, unfocussed house style for automated production. The more any artform is separated from genuine, unconstrained human input - from recorded music to architecture - the more it devalues itself. Disney - the Nike of cartoons.

¤ ¤ credit: Justin | 08.30.03 at 06:22 AM | link--this ¤ ¤

It is sad that we have to rely on the corprate machine to produce a stunning and somewhat taken for granted art form.

I love animated films. I am a film junky and 2-D animation is what I "cut my teeth on". That being said, I feel it is a real injustice to the children of today and future generations if this wonderful art form is completely taken away.

I have friends who are 2-D animators and I rage at the thought of these 2 talented men being forced to conform to some idiots lack of vision.

There will always be things that can be accomplished in the 2-D medium that 3-D will not accomplish. I'm sure the pioneers of animation, those departed are rolling in their graves.

I hope these anmimation studio "big wigs" take heed to the voices of those who line their pockets. IT IS NOT THE TYPE OF ANIMATION!!!!!!

What is truly compelling about animated films are wonderfully witty, intelligent and engaging stories with characters that can be described the same way. The voices don't have to be recognizable to make the film grab your attention. Many times it is a bizarre distraction. There are some actors yes that have the training to pull off tremendous voice preformances. These are usually character actors that are best known for their abilities and not for looks. Which only leads to the question, why have those who are purely "eyecandy" do the voice work in the first place?

If the great artisans of the past were alive would you force them to give up oils, arcylics, canvas, brushes, clay, marble etc... for the virtual world of the computer? Michaelango, Da Vinci, Picaso, Van Gogh, Renoir and so on.... Do you not think for one second they would tell you where you can stick that idea?

The secret to Pixar's sucess lies in one thing. They have a super team of creative thinkers that can think in the realms of both children and adults. They combine fresh story ideas with imaginative, likeable characters. It just so happens that their "paint brush" is the computer and there style is 3-D.

I believe as the other fans of 2-D that we will have to rely on anime for quality 2-D from now on.

On that note I bow my head and take a moment of silence in memory of North American 2-D animation.

¤ ¤ credit: Candice | 08.30.03 at 07:35 AM | link--this ¤ ¤

A bigger problem for the US 2-D feature industry then the celebrity VA's is the insane budgets required. Due to their insistance on using completely in house animation and union scales the feature animation budgets have exploded. Look at Treasure Planet that had a budget of nearly $120 million. Lilo and Stitch checked in at a budget at $80 mil. That puts a lot of pressure on these films to not only do good, but do great returns at the gate.

For 2-D features to survive the cost of making them absolutely must go down. Although it is not going to be a popular sentiment I say the US industry needs to farm out most of the in-between grunt work to Korea and other 'cheap' animation places. While I hate to lose US jobs to other countries, it looks like either swallow that pill or lose the artform/industry all together.

Compare that to the estimated budget on Spirited Away of 18-20 million. Big difference. Even if SA didn't go on to become the box office gangbuster that it did, it would have been much easier to make back that kind of money. Even in Japan with it's smaller population and box office potential

¤ ¤ credit: Mike R. | 08.31.03 at 10:56 AM | link--this ¤ ¤

You have to agree that the really great animated films of the past few seasons have been well-written scripts turned to the big screen. John Lassiter tells a great story when he's in front of an audience. I've heard him twice in Annecy. And he runs a staff of creatives at Pixar that can conceptualise and produce as well. There's a lot of 2D work in the storyboards but just as much CGI in the production. In today's market, you have to have both, starting with a creative story.

¤ ¤ credit: Bernie Goldbach | 09.02.03 at 11:14 AM | link--this ¤ ¤




URLs that have pinged me for this entry:



All old ping links have been removed from this blog. Die spammers, die!




Hey pretty, don't you wanna take a ride with me through my world?


Psssssst...pass it on!
email this entry to:


your email address:


additional message (optional):