Slashdot Mirror
Disney Does Digital, Ditches Drawings
May Kasahara writes "This is something which has been the talk amongst animators for the past couple of weeks: Walt Disney Feature Animation is in the process of halting all work on traditionally-animated features and going completely CG. Supposedly, all of their animators-- even staunch traditionalists such as Glenn Keane-- are being trained on 3D computer animation techniques. The last hand-drawn high-budget Disney feature scheduled for release is Home on the Range, which is due out next April. It appears that Disney is bowing to the supposed pressures of the market, even though the hand-drawn Lilo and Stitch was considered a success and the all-CG Dinosaur (done at Disney's now-defunct FX house The Secret Lab) was not. However, I believe there's another factor at work: Pixar's contract with Disney is set to expire soon, and the revered CG house has been making their own demands of Disney for the contract's renewal."
Walt Disney would have loved this move to full CG! He likely would not have liked Pixar's pushy behaviour, however. Apparently Walt loved the results of drawing cartoons, but complained about the long hours at his desk, until he gave up drawing altogether to supervise his own studio. He also loved new inventions, as he was the first person to make a cartoon with sound (Steamboat Willie (1928)). Therefore, I would have to say that Walt would have loved the idea of making machines draw for him!
People still DRAW things?
I try to limit the amount of paper used as far as possible. In this day and age - graphics tablets, decent graphics software I'm sure Disney have figured out that it's cheaper and more efficient to use a computer.
It also gives the animators more artistic freedoms as well as freedom from some of the drudgery of cell animation where every single frame has to be drawn by hand.
Video Game cheats, hints a
3D is not all.
I personally consider that "The Emperor's new groove" though classsically designed is much better than some more technologically advanced movie.
Now, if they want to privilegiate the marketing and the buzzwords to the storytelling, it's their business.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
I just heard some sad news on talk radio - cartoon Mickey Mouse was found dead in his Anaheim home this morning. There weren't any more details yet. I'm sure we'll all miss him, even if you weren't a fan of his work there's no denying his contribution to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
I will miss the old hand-drawn films. They have a certain nostalgia about them... the not-so-crispness lends a certain effect that is lost in computer-generated animation. CG is nice, but I don't think they should completely eradicate the old way.
The Present is the point at which time touches eternity. - C.S. Lewis
It would be interesting to see "normal" animations generated with computers, instead of the now-so-common 3D things like Finding Nemo.
I would suppose digital equipment would offer lots of possibilities for texturing in general, and cinematic effects such as lense focus, motion
blur and a lot of more complex things.
Well, if 3D feature animations sell, then those we shall have, it seems. And I do have to admit that Finding Nemo does have a similar look to it as some "traditional" animation titles, being "less" three-dimensional..
http://codeandlife.com
This is really just a sensible evolution, a transition to a newer way of making a polished product. Drawing by hand will still be around as an intermediate step for design and planning (storyboards and such).
Making a transition to "computer graphics" does not necessarily mean a move to "3D work." There's been tons of CG usage in Disney cartoons already (stampede in Lion King, flying through trees in Tarzan, etc.), and neither of those would be considered 3D animations (like Toy Story, Shrek, et. al.) ... hell, even South Park is animated completely by computer, and you can't seriously tell me that it looks in the least like it's 3D.
This is not going to be the end of a traditional 2D-look for cartoons, but I can see it as Disney just embracing the technology that's there, like they did with Snow White and the pseudo-3D frame photography that they used for that.
topreacher@signature.slashdot.org 1% rm -rf sig
To call Pixar pushy is to miss the point: right now they're getting screwed. Disney is getting 50% of their movies for doing nothing more than distributing. Pixar is investing years of labor and untold hours of computing time into making these as good as possible and Disney is pulling crap like not counting Toy Story 2 in the original 5 movie deal (Disney doesn't count sequels as new properties, even when they're immensely successful and have a veyr nice theatrical run).
Pixar deserves whatever they can get, and Disney deserves the same deal that Fox gets for distributing Lucas' work: 15% or lower.
That being said, I would also venture to guess that Pixar is looking to branch out into more adult fare as well. It's only time until a fully rendered CG film deals with adult themes (NOT porn...but that's a possibility too) instead of just catering to kiddie audiences. Finding Nemo was closer than anything else they've done, but my guess is that once Disney drops Pixar, they announce a PG-13 rated drama.
Quite honestly, Pixar doesn't need Disney at all. Pixar could easily get the capital necessary to build their own distribution house, especially considering that digital media are rapidly replacing film in theaters. If they did break off their relationship with Disney, it would provide Pixar the chance to offer some more serious fare, finally giving the US a studio to compete with some of the higher-budget anime of recent years (a la Ghost in the Shell or Final Fantasy).
Disney has been using CG in their "traditional" animation for some time. My kids were watching "The Emperor's New Groove" the other day and I watched the behind-the-scenes portion in which they showed how many elements (such as the wagon pulled by the John Goodman character) were CG and combined with traditional animation for the characters. It looks just like the cel-based animation, since they use shaders that make the 3D objects look hand-drawn. If I recall correctly, they also used a good bit of CG in even older productions, such as "Beauty and the Beast."
This is also a trend that goes beyond Disney- DreamWorks used lots and lots of CG in "Spirit- Stallion of the Cimmeron" (the extras on the DVD are worth watching).
The thing to remember in all this is that the move to CG doesn't mean you won't have Disney features that look hand-drawn. Not all CG looks like work from Pixar or "Shrek." Use the right shaders and picking out the CG from hand-drawn gets very difficult indeed.
On the other hand, the story writing and characters created by Pixar in the their last several movies could have easily been able to be done with traditional animation, assuming a good animation studio was behind it. The 3d CGI adds the right amount of sparkle to an already top-notch story, but the writing is so good, that the 3d is not necessary.
What Disney needs is to rethink their approach to their 'animated' features. Lilo and Stitch *was* funny and was a good movie, and beautiful to look at with the watercolor backgrounds. If it was done in 3d, it actually may have actually lost something in the final presenation. But the key improvement was the writing where they turned back to their past talent and got them to do their thing, and didn't muck about in making it family friendly. As such, it's a very witty movie. But when the management gets too deep in the details to make a movie more appealing to the very young crowd, it suffers drastically (such as Treasure Planet did).
Fortunately, I don't think Dreamworks is giving up their feature animation department. Sure, Sinbad didn't do so well, but they have had a few good shots with that and with The Road to El Diablo. (If anything, Dreamworks fault lies in too much 2D/3D overlap). WB has disbanded it's feature animation department (The new LT movie is not much as aniamted as it is live), and FOX killed it's line after Titan AE failed. It's a shame that people think that 3d is the only way that people will appreicate an animated movie. The only reason that every Pixar movie has worked is that every Pixar movie has great writing behind it, not just a bunch of render farms.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Disney's first use of CG spliced into traditional features was for the magic carpet in Aladdin. That was 1993 IIRC.
Lilo and Stitch wasn't a success becuse it was hand-drawn, it was a success because the story was interesting, the characters were fun, and the movie well-made. And Dinosaur wasn't a flop because it was a CG film, it was a flop because it sucked.
CG lets you do cool stuff that's not readily feasible by hand, but it's no substitute for a good story. The marketplace isn't pressuring Disney to abandon hand-drawing, it's pressuring Disney to make good films. They've just made a decision that they're better off producing them via CG instead of hand animation. Right now, though, Disney's good animated films are all coming from Pixar - who happen to be an all-CG shop.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
Can CG do high quality artistic caliber 2d drawings ?
When I am watching a movie i almost don't care if it's 2d or 3d as long as it's good.
Of course, that doesn't mean that they should abandon the 3D animation arena to Dreamworks and Pixar. Developing talent and capabilities in the 3D arena are clearly needed (and could be melded into existing 2D techniques ala the ballroom scene in "Beauty and the Beast"). Still concluding that 2D is dead seems a bit premature to me.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
What does Walt think about technology? :)
From the strange-but-true department
here...
Walt Disney was fascinated with technology. It's no wonder the creator of Mickey Mouse had his body frozen. Immediately after his death on December 17, 1965, Walt Disney was placed into cryogenic suspension - in other words, frozen. The theory goes that anyone suspended and preserved can be brought back to life, if or when the cure is discovered for whatever that person died from. Technology will be able to revive them from cryogenic suspension. And so Walt Disney waits for the day he'll be brought back to life.
Let's thaw him and ask!
He says that The Emperor's New Groove has CG in it.
4 32 439
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=85284&cid=7
I guess you've become nostaligic for CG
As far as I know, the quickest and most efficient method of creating a 2D animation in CG is to model it in 3D and then let the rendering package give it a "2D animation" look. So most CG animations are in fact 3D under the suface, even if the result is a 2D looking image.
Walt Disney Feature Animation is in the process of halting all work on traditionally-animated features and going completely CG.
Article says-
Stainton, who took over as animation chief earlier this year, insists the press obituaries for 2-D are premature. "It is a bit of a media creation to say 2-D is dead.
Supposedly, all of their animators-- even staunch traditionalists such as Glenn Keane-- are being trained on 3D computer animation techniques.
Article says -
"We will always do whatever fits the story best," Cook assures. "We've gone on a concerted effort to train and re-train artists. But we will keep our great sensibility."
The last hand-drawn high-budget Disney feature scheduled for release is Home on the Range, which is due out next April.
Article says -
continues with the computer/hand-drawn hybrid A Few Good Ghosts in '06 as well as the spoof Rapunzel Unbraided in '07.
But I think most of the work will end up in China or Korea where the labor is less.
I heard that alot Anime is actually drawn there.
The Simpsons are drawn in Korea i think it was.
They did an interview with some of the Koreans and they didn't get the humor of the Simpsons.
Dear Abby,
You are a fuckhead.
Signed,
Shutthefuckupbitch
as he was the first person to make a cartoon with sound (Steamboat Willie (1928)).
He also was first with the Multi-Plane Camera used in Mary Poppins.
The truth shall set you free!
What Pixar has brought to its animation is a respect for its audience, high quality animation, and artistic integrity. And they have consistantly done something that other studios seem to do only by accident: create characters a wide spectrum of audiences can actually CARE about.
I'm happy Pixar is out there because their stories aren't cynical. They reflect an integrity that comes from imbuing their characters with a fundamental humanity we all can relate to. It's good for children. It's good for everyone.
I'm hoping they push up the rating scale and make more complex stories as well. If Pixar starts to write stories about ambiguous characters they can truly re-invent American animation.
The Lilo&Stitch v. Dinosaur comparison is an invalid weak correlation.
The valid difference between those films was that L&S was a strong story with strong feelings and psychological complexity, while Dinosaur was a predictable, tired story with pat characters.
Until L&S, I thought Disney would have to rely on Pixar for all of its quality storytelling (and it's not the CGI at Pixar that makes their films great, it's Stanton and Lasseter, who are absolute masters at creating stories and the characters that are perfect for them).
Disney proper still has the magic, and needs to get past the economic silliness of paint vs. paint-box. CG is far faster, cheaper, and more versatile.
I just wish they'd thrown some proficient story magicians at Treasure Planet, because the visuals were great and could have been better if they'd been better incorporated with a resilient plot and engaged characters.
a GOOD STORY LINE
For starters, I think Matrix Revolutions really did create a revolution in the movie industry: they proved that you still need a good story line in order to make a good movie even with zillion dollars set for CG. Revolutions might have been an eye candy, but I definitely snoozed through a part of it. I don't think I can sit through that again. But I definitely have watched some Disney films and some anime (Studio Ghilibi) more than 2 or three times.
For me, CG does cut away a bit of the "warmth" that comes from traditional style animation. I liked Lilo and Stitch more than Finding Nemo or Shrek, even though all three had a good storyline and were equally entertaining.
I guess I am lenient towards traditional because I watch anime alot. The newer types of anime with a lot of CG really don't compare to the older ones that I like.
There seems to be a whole buncha people complaining that this is the death of art, blah blah blah, as we know it.
CG does not mean that all animation will be 3D/look the same. It's just a new set of tools, practices allowing the artist to work with greater efficiency and a better palette.
Maybe we should go back to filming flip-book drawings if this advancement is so universally reviled.
Walt Disney pulled a fast one on pixar saying that toy story 2 did not count in the 5 picture deal. This was due to it being a sequel and not an original. This is what has held up toy story 3.
Remember, just because Disney is moving to all CG, does not mean that every Disney movie is going to look like a Pixar flick. A lot of folks here seem to have that impression.
;) )
Most Disney movies already incorporate a lot of CG (ie Treasure Planet). However, Disney still choses to use a lot of design principles that people typically identify with older hand drawn Disney cartoons.
(ohh and on a side note... South Park is nearly 100% CG, and that looks nothing like a pixar flick
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Disney's been heading into the CG arena for quite a few years now. While cels are still hand drawn they all end up scanned into a computer and colored and composited digitally. Drawing directly on the computer instead of scanning cels simply cuts out a rather pricey step in the animation process. They also get to leverage the computer's innate ability to do really tedious jobs quickly.
If they made some software that would take something drawn on a tablet and convert it into NURBS and let the animator define relationships easily they could save a lot of time animating. They could adopt interpolation techniques used in 3D animation to flat 2D animation. It also isn't terribly difficult to adapt 3D animation to look like cel drawings. Disney's been doing that for years, ever since the antilope scene in Kimb^H^H^H^HLion King. The milling crowds in the Hunchback of Notre Dame were animated using a similar technique.
Regardless of how Disney makes their films I just want them to hire some decent writers. Their movies aren't flops because of the animation techniques, they flops because they're crappy movies. I had really high hopes for Atlantis. It looked like it might be an interesting flick from the previews. Titan AE despite its suckiness was a much better animated action flick. Emperor's New Groove however was pretty funny and is one of if not the best animated disney flick made in the past several years. Treasure Planet was as boring and uninspired as Atlantis. Hercules however was pretty funny and kept my interest. Lilo & Stitch so didn't live up to my expectations. It needed way more Stitch hilarity and less whining about being a family.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
This is something which has been the talk amongst animators for the past couple of weeks
This is something that the animation community has known was coming for more than a year. It was only a matter of time.
Well, that's probably is the quickest way, if not the best way. Computer generated animation doesn't need to be cell-shaded 3D. A good example would be the anime version of Metropolis. Admittedly they did a lot of cell-shaded 3D for the city backgrounds, but the characters were hand-drawn. However, they were digitally painted and partially inbetweened, and the motion was heavily smoothed out in the computer. It sharpens up the characters so they look better overlaid on the 3D backgrounds, and it saves a lot of time and money.
Disney needs to learn a few lessons from Pixar regarding respect for their viewers.
Disney DVD:
Too damn many previews, lame plots, good characters, One disk for movie, other disk for special features, lots of stickers on the side to peel off.
Pixar DVD:
Almost the opposite. You get two discs containing the movie, one wide and one full pan & scan. So, one for the kids to thrash and one to keep for later, or give to a friend. No forced previews, and one security sticker.
Frankly, the Pixar packaging and presentation value is easily 2X that of Disney and that does not even count the movie. Which has been more lame than usual these days.
Pixar is making new stories instead of pillaging the public domain as Disney tends to do often. Sure, there are new stories from Disney, but they have not been as good as those produced by Pixar.
Given all the crap Disney does behind the scenes regarding copyright issues plus their overly pushy presentation and packaging issues, I believe many people are more than willing to look at other options.
Disney can retool their production house all they want, but they are going to lose big in the DVD market as long as they keep releasing the way they do.
I can't wait to see Pixar go once they can do what they want.
Blogging because I can...
All this discussion makes me want to watch "The Fox and the Hound". I haven't seen that since I was 10 or 11. I don't remember any songs or cute sidekicks. Just a good story of friendship. Actually, it was a pretty dark story for a 10 year old.
It's mandatory to wash your hands before returning to the land of Dairy Queen.
I've heard it was animated entirely with computers, but I'm not sure. I know the second season (J to X) was, and it shows. It had some really amazing animation I wouldn't expect to see in a TV series. On the other hand, the colors were just too clean and sharp. I'm not sure what causes it (I don't think I could even discribe the differnce adaquately in words), but I've always been able to tell when computers have been used in a sequence. If that's changed, it's a recent thing. Anyone know of something that was animated on a computer from start to finish they couldn't tell from cell painting?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
While cartoons may be drawn in 2D, nearly all are attempting to capture the essence of 3D scenes. Computer-related definately can work with a 2D model in mind to get 3D-looking results, and I'm sure you will see some movies eventually try that (Flash is for the most part 2D, and there are some very interesting animations coming from that). 2D tools are good for quick one-offs.
However, programs working with 3D model just map so much better when you want the result to look 3D. Rotating an object doesn't require redrawing it. You can do more with your camera then just pan. Things done in 3D are much more reuseable, making large projects more feasible.
Disney have little regard for such concepts as democracy and consumer rights.
They throw so much money at one particular senator that he has come to be known as the 'Senator from Disney'. Surely this is contrary to our image of democracy.
Until they retire their constant stream of 'donations' and make a public apology for further corrupting an already pretty fucking corrupt political system ( land of the free, my arse ), I urge everyone to do the same as I do: hire their DVDs, re-encode them in DivX;) format, burn them onto CD, and distribute them as much as possible amongst your friends, reminding them each time why you have unresolved issues with Disney, and that the alternative - giving them more money - is only going to make matters worse for all.
It's a bit ironic that as Disney switches from the cell shaded look to the 3D, many video games are switching from the 3D look to cell shaded.
they won't be throwing real lemmings off cliffs anymore?
Step 1) Create CG animated films
Step 2) ???
Step 3) PROFIT!!!
It's relatively cheap and a small team can make a great CG animation. This will allow more ideas/dreams to be realized and probably will allow Disney to make much more money since they can have many CG animations being created at the same time and just pick which one is best for Theatres and release the rest on DVD/VHS.
-- D3X
My latest endeavour... truly free porn www.NeoX3.com 5 mins movies supported by only 15s of commercials. No-popups or membership or catches.
Just FYI, Stuart Little was animated in Maya, like most non-Pixar movies (they have a proprietary package named Marionette for that) but still rendered in Renderman (see the sigraph notes from the year stuart little came out, it talks about the renderman shader they used for the fur). Everyone in hollywood renders with Renderman, Pixar just prefers to keep its animations in a cartoon style, while others use a realistic one. But yeah, everyone uses either Softimage or Maya to animate, and then Renderman to render.
With the ability to change the shape of 3d geometry in any way at any interval the animation capabilities of 3d are limitless. A vertex (or any other part of geometry) could be at coordinates (0,0,0) at frame 1, then at (5,10,90) at frame 2, changing locations without traversing the space in between. I believe that is "bending space-time", and it exists in all digital animation that is composed of frames. It is impossible not to bend "space-time" while dealing with quantized animation media.
There are no physical laws in CG unless the artist desires there to be. The only limitations are in the artist's ability to use the software, and sometimes (though it seems unlikely with power of software scripting and ad hoc software creation) in the software itself. Moving to an all CG animation process removes the tedium of traditional animation and adds all of the automation and precision possible with computers.
Good example. Doing 2D in the computer makes lots of sense in terms of color matching/'tweening and overall effects. Metropolis was a very pretty looking movie. Too bad the pacing and directing were so poorly done.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
I wouldn't be surprised if we started seeing apparent "flaws" added to CG animation to make it look like traditional animation. Stuff like random noise added to perspective calculations, some jitter added to the outlines. It's the lack of these flaws that makes it easy (for me at least) to spot the CG in otherwise entirely hand-drawn films.
'Dotters discuss Disney.
Disney ditching drawing? Digital Disney? Dumb.
Donald Duck doesn't do dimensions. Dumbo doesn't. Dalmations don't. Drawings darling. Drawings delight.
Dinosaur dimensionful -- Dinosaur dumb. Duh.
Disney's dangerous decision dooms Disney's deliverables! Defines Disney's decay, death.
Don't deify dimensionality. Deceptive.
- Dominic
I'm not really sure if Japanese animation still uses the traditional pencil and paper method, but it's highly likely they've moved to CG (Note, not necessarily 3D).
I've watched a fair bit of anime, and there is just a certain quality of the cel-shaded animation that appeals to me. It's harder to comically exaggerate things in real life; such things are easier with cel-shading. Also, anime usually have much better plot, characters than most cartoons and sometimes movies (*cough*Tomb Raider*cough*). I mean, a large-breasted women in tight clothes kicking ass... add in some emotional scenes with her dad... you get Tomb Raider: The Movie! Whereas (most) Japanese people have more tact and create interesting plots. (FYI, I'm not Japanese)
Good Chinese calligraphy is still very valuable because of the skill required to do it, and who knows, drawing could be worth much more than CG sometime into the future...
Founder of Mirror Moon - Tsukihime Game Trans
I agree. What the original poster might not realize is that CG 3d can be rendered such that it appears to have been hand drawn, i.e. cel-shading instead of smooth shading (Phong, Blinn etc.). The systems used by Disney to emulate a traditional animation look are much more complex than the cel-shading renderers available to consumers though.
Pixar's 1986 short film Knick Knack that was played with Finding Nemo and included on the DVD has been modified to remove "adult" content.
Was this at Disney's request?
As long as the final product is 2D, I think it is still a toss-up between doing things 2D in a computer vs doing things in 3D on a computer. Advantages and disadvantages to both. I think there's still lots of opportunity for doing kick-ass 2D animation using a computer as the primary medium (eliminating the cell-drawing/painting/'tweening tedium and expense). It blows my mind that "Treasure Planet" cost $140 mega bucks to make. I'll bet if we gave 14 aspiring animators $10 mega bucks each, they could make some seriously great films, both in 2D and in 3D.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
...on the soon-to-be-rare animation cels. Prices will go sky-high after this!
"No groaning in my store." - Comic Book Guy
You know, it is possible that this is all just a fad or perhaps cyclical. CG is still relatively new, and thus captures interest. However, after a while people may grow bored of the look of it and animation may make a big comeback. After all, animation was considered a dying art in the 70s', but roared back in the mid 80's.
My point is that the future is hard to predict. A Disney artist will have to learn to be flexible, because change is the only constant and consumers are fickle.
Table-ized A.I.
In terms of hand-drawn Disney movies, I think it's more a matter of the style that can be attained by drawn images. However, a LOT of work goes into that. Most cartoons don't have nearly that amount expressiveness, yet they still don't look as stilted as Final Fantasy did.
Here's a plot template:
In (insert movie title here) the young idealistic protagonist must battle against his/her old-fashioned superiors who don't believe in him/her, while both protagonist and superiors must fight a common enemy (carnoaurs/locusts/evil witch).
Along the way, a love interest is discovered, and sidekick characters are introduced for comic relief. At least one of the sidekicks is obese. Sidekicks also have a distinctively different accent from the main character, either ethnically distinct, or regionally distinct (eg from one of the five burroughs of New York).
In the end, the protagonist triumphs over the common enemy, and the old-fashioned superiors realize that they must change their predjudiced ideas and respect the young protagonist.
I think this summarizes "Dinosaur", "Bug's Life", the "Little Mermaid", and "Mulan". Any other movies fit this formula? I suspect "Antz" does, but I haven't seen it because any trailers I've seen remind me of "Bug's Life".
Thought about working for Variety?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Have we all forgotten "Tron" (1982)?
I doubt the implied "All 3D, CGI" stance. I think what this (may) mean is that they'll go with drawings done on computer (with planchet/pen) instead of traditional "cell's". Cost savings are considerable that way AFAIK. That's the same trend Japanese studios have been going too. Even 1997 "Mononoke Hime" is done completely in digital format but of course it's not 3D at all (except some parts, of course).
Beauty and the Beast is not the first Disney movie with CGI. There are definitely CGI scenes in Little Mermaid (The ship at the beginning, stairs in the castle when Ariel is running down from them) and in Oliver & Co. (the chase on the railway tracks).
--- Frantisek Fuka (Yes, that's my real name and you have no idea how it's pronounced)
Disney's 2D department is in limbo because recent scripts were weak. Their animators are still great!
Cynical businessmen have looted the Disney legacy, with classy projects such as "Peter Pan 2", "Hunchback 2", "Cinderella 2", "Aladdin: The Series" etc.
Disney dug its own grave, believing in their homemade "sure" formula for success. The formula is deader than dead. The audience didn't want to be fooled any longer and chose the better films: Those made by Pixar, where you can still see the spark and joy of the people creating these films.
If you're looking for what modern Disney could be, look for the films of Miyazaki. It's still a mystery to me why the old films from the back catalog of Ghibli is still being ignored by Europeans and Americans.
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
Well I think its a good idea that they are moving forwards but I will really miss the hand drawn cartoons. I did grew up with cartoons like liitle mermaid...
www.easydrm.com
www.colocationcity.com
but I was under the impression that Disney also did the actual writing of the movies, supplied things like the orchestra and the artists for the music, and supplied all the (famous) people to play the voices of the characters
Emperor's new groove has a lot more CG in it than most people realise. I mean, the makority of people realise that the big log falling down the waterfall was quite obvious 3D art, but there were a lot of little things that went by unnoticed: The cart that Pacha pulls around when he goes to see the Emperor, for example, or the bag that Kuzco is dropped in.
Disney seem to have foudn a method of generatign a 3D model, and animate it in a way that looks cartoony. At the very least, the 3D models were used as rough sketches form which to draw the cartoony bits.
Also, Emperor's new groove was coloured entirely digitally.
(I'm getting all this from the second DVD in the special edition of the film, BTW.)
I was browsing Disney.com, ironically, and noticed that the traditional art animator description contains the line "DUE TO OUR CURRENT PRODUCTION NEEDS, WE WILL NOT BE ACCEPTING TRADITIONAL PORTFOLIOS ON A CONTINUOUS BASIS."
:)
Should be a clue, eh?
"PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
Sure it may be theoretically limitless, but not practically.
If your creative and inspired, all you need is a pen and paper to draw something very simple on paper yet very hard in 3D.
Escher comes to mind.
His drawings are, in essence, simple.
But modelling an exsisting escher piece in 3D is hard and creating a new escher-like piece is extremely hard.
By the same logic 2D is limitless.
There are paintings done wuth just paint on a canvas (and thus no computer aid) that look surprisingly 3D-like.
But creating something that looks like Toy Story with 2D tools is just as hard as creating something like Beauty and the Beast (with the same style, meaning not a Toy Story-look 3D look) with CG
And Debbie Does Dallas!
The contract Pixar signed with Disney basically said this:
Make 5 movies for us. We (Disney) will own all the franchise rights. Once your 5 movies are up, we'll let you out of the contract.
Pixar makes Toy Story. Disney makes millions. Pixar makes A Bugs Life. Disney makes millions. Pixar makes Toy Story 2, originally for direct to video, but its so good, Disney decides to put it in theatres.
Pixar asks, will Toy Story 2 count toward our 5 picture obligation? Disney says, hell no - it's not a new franchise. You still owe us three new films. Pixar makes Finding Nemo, Disney makes millions, etc.
At this point Pixar is asking, why are we busting our butts for the mouse and letting them rake in all the money? Disney has had it good... way too good.
This is just normal negotiations, now that Pixar is in a better position. Disney needs that cash flow (since they're doing a lousy job at generating decent stories in-house), but Pixar also benefits from the awesome distribution and promotion arm that Disney wields. I figure Disney will sign Pixar, but will shortly try and cut them loose if and when their own in-house 3d department makes good.
Too bad for Disney (I think laying off most of Feature Animation was a mistake), but that's what happens when the accountants and lawyers are running the asylum...
Dinosaur was a flop? That fools me. I rather like that movie (and as does my son). The Toy Story movies are OK and all (I like 2 better, but maybe that's just me), but Dinosaur is a great film. Nemo is the only movie I can think of that's better (as far as this genre goes, I mean).
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
The French Disney studio was closed because France was always too expensive to do animation in. The studio was only created to appease the French government to get Eurodisney through.
The Japanese studio closing is a sad thing. Disney don't have enough quality product to feed their studios, so it came down to Australia and Japan, and Japan got the arse for whatever reason. There is still an active studio in Australia producing 2D stuff, most of which goes direct to video but there is some film work. A lot of the crappier TV/direct to video stuff is done by contractors in the philipines. So 2D, hand drawn animation still does exist at Disney.
One of the biggest changes a move to an entirely computer based system presents is it takes away your training school for new animators. Traditionally, animators start out as inbetweeners, doing all the grunt work to get a film through. The inbetweeners with talent are soon picked up and moved through the various departments before they become proper animators and eventually senior animators if they are good enough. Moving to an entirely digital platform means the inbetweeners and cleanup artists suddenly don't exist anymore. Where do the animators come from in this new model? It's a pretty big change.
That said, most animation at Disney has been mostly computer based for years. While most of the 2D frames are still drawn on paper, they're scanned and painted and composited entirely on computer. It speeds the process up and improves the quality significantly, while still preserving the feel of hand drawn animation, which is a good thing imho.
Good idea. Replace your artists with a bunch of geeks and uber expensive software. Yah, that'll work. Don't forget to fire the writer...
"It appears that Disney is bowing to the supposed pressures of the market, even though the hand-drawn Lilo and Stitch was considered a success and the all-CG Dinosaur (done at Disney's now-defunct FX house The Secret Lab) was not."
I have doubts that the reason 'Dinosaur' didn't do as well was because it was all CG. The bigwig Hollywood producer mentality is that pumping $50,000,000 into a production will sell more seats, but maybe they should take the time to consider WHY they're doing it. This isn't the stock market; find a good story first, then serve that story.
It's funny that in all the action, violence, and sex (all good), at times we forget that the reason we'll pay $10 to sit in a big room with a bunch of strangers is so someone can tell us a story.
"But the cars are all flashing me, bright lights are passing me, I feel life passing me by" - Stiff Little Fingers
CG is crack for directors.
Look at Star Wars and tell me I'm wrong.
atleast they seem loyal to their animators, by training them instead of laying off everyone and hiring new more qualified animators. thumbs up to disney
1985, had computer generated pots and pans flying around.
According to IMDb "The first Disney animated feature to use computer technology."
Now it's possible that there was hand painting over the digital stuff, but it was CGI (not full frame, but then neither was the ballroom scene in Beauty and the Beast)
When you see people on the DVD using Macs and tablets, it is either to color the digital "cels" or to digitally preview the animation.
I think this is a mistake. But I could see it coming when the Lion King (which I didn't care for) was so successful. While a traditional cartoon, it relied heavily on computer animation. All Disney's recent cartoons have massive amounts of computer animation - and it just doesn't look right. The last movie that I recall looking really good was the Little Mermaid. If they made more totally hand drawn movies, maybe their movies would do better.
Damn!
The story was brilliant, and even more so, there was NO dialogue throughout the movie. I believe 2D animation continues to be quite viable -- and as many have already mentioned here, that it's the STORY that makes a picture a success (or failure).
Disney cartoons have always been too formulaic -- perhaps they are afraid to go against the grain of their past successes?
The PC Weenies: 11 Years of Online Tech 'Too
The overbudgeted, poorly attended "Final Fantasy - The Spirits within" dealt with some adult themes. Granted they used a fantasy story that has limited appeal on the big screen, but for most that saw it, it showed a hint of what realistic computer animation offers.
Delta-dominated drivel, dynamically deconstructed Derrida-style.
Doh!
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
requires some serious anti-biotics to kill off all the dead useless execs at disney. Ever since Katzenburg left disney, they haven't produce anything worth looking at. Plain and simple. Disney sucks because the execs like Eisner know jack shit about making movies and writing fresh new stories. No amount of retraining of the animators will fix the problem. The fix is to axe all the dead execs who are already souless jerks.
3D animation is a great medium, but unless Disney can develop some kind of style for it, they're screwed. They're throwing out their 2D style, which is absolutely unique, and jumping into 3D which they're not going to be able to brand anywhere near as easily.
Good point, but.....3D modelling gives you 2D automatically when a 3D scene is rendered for a frame. The trick for Disney is to create their own 3D modeling and 3D-to-2D rendering algorithms that replicate that Disney 2D animation style. Although many see photorealism as the Holy Grail for 3D, nothing is stopping clever programmers from rendering a 3D scenes as a series of flat "cartoon-like" objects or adding in embellishments like object distortion with speed or "whoosh" lines.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Disney Decides it Must Draw Artists Into the Computer Age
Metropolis was a very pretty looking movie.
And sounded great too. I was shocked to get jazz compaired to what I'd expected.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
3d animators are as much artists as 2d animators. And some of the really good ones used to be 2d animators. Having worked with several 3d animators, I can honestly tell you, working with computers all day does not mean they are geeks. Many of them know 3 things. How to turn the computer on, how to use the application and how to call the tech support for problems.
With that being said, there are many good 3d animators that are computer savy. Some of the bigger 3d studios want you to know some scripting just because of the nature of the work.
At the end of the day, 3d gives some freedom to directors and artists that 2d did not provide. It also provides some limitations as well.
I will miss traditionaly animated Disney movies, but I do think that Disney needs its own in house 3d team (if only to keep friends employed).
-Tim
-I just work here... how am I supposed to know?
It is true that since Pixar's contract is up that Disney is a little on edge about potentially losing their 3D cash cow. Eisner is also under the false assumption that part of the reason that Pixar does so well is that it is in 3D. True, that the novelty of 3D is attractive, but it's simpler than that: Pixar makes good stories. They're not just the re-hashed crap that Disney had been releasing lately. Lilo and Stitch had a cool story and some devoted staff, that's why it worked. Eisner is trying to substitute more gimmick for substance.
Their shift into 3D is a real pain in my arse. I'm a computer animator and right now there is a HUGE influx of animators out there looking for jobs since Disney closed its traditional animation doors. I'm interested to see how well Disney does with their first 3D movie. It' not the 3D people, it's the story driving it. From Disney's latest track record I doubt the suits will realize that and hence, I believe their next movie to be a flop.
The downside of 3D animation is that it only looks good when it's expensive. The only way to cut corners in 3D animation is to not feature humans.
The upside of 2D animation is that it can look good even when it's on very low budget. Combine that with the fact that 2D outsourcing studios around Asia are almost as cheap as slave labor, and the Japanese can make a great looking movie like Ghost in the Shell for $5.5M, or Spirited Away for $18M (or was it $12M?).
The less a movie costs, the smaller an audience it needs, so it can have a riskier/smarter plot. The more a movie costs, the more mainstream it has to be. Back when Disney, Dreamworks and Fox were still willing to do 2D, they had the opportunity to make low budget, experimental animation as cool as anything the Japanese do. Instead, they blew it on expensive and pretty-but-boring movies like Treasure Planet and Stallion of Cimmaron. Now that they're doing all 3D all the time, there's no way they can experiment and stumble across something cool. There's simply too much money at stake in each movie.
What hope there is now for trendy animation from American studios would be the shows on Cartoon Network and Comedy Central, and web cartoons like homestarrunner.com. Those guys are working on small enough budgets and long enough timeframes that they can experiment and take time to build up an audience.
Wow, we all knew Disney was Evil for trying to cripple computers, but man, they're even screwing over one of their best partners. How greedy and shortsighted can you get? :P
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
The problem with cryogenically freezing someone is all of the cracking that occurs in the frozen body. A show on TV not long ago was profiling a cryogenics company, and the spokesman was saying that they had only recently figured out a way to keep the brain from having dozens, rather than hundreds, of cracks in it after freezing.
Can you imagine Walt's brain having hundreds of fissures in it? Even if they could cure what killed him, he'd still be dead from the massive brain damage.
Cryogenics is nothing more than snake oil, a way to steal the estates of dying rich people.
Walt Disney never had such a money-grubbing attitude. That is what Disney became after the Jews took it over.
The fact is that Pixar knows how to tell a great story. The CG is meaningless without that. There are lots of CG movies and TV shows flooding the market these days, but Pixar is still able to make a name for themselves because it's about the story first and the technology second.
Lets face it... Disney has largely become the drive-thru for low budget, afternoon babysitter movies.
Eisner may be a smart business man but he isn't a filmaker, story-teller or dreamer... just a high priced media pimp.
The article cites that, among other things, traditional 2D takes too long, and somehow looks dated. Hrm. Someone should inform Hiyo Miazaki that Priness Mononoke & Spirited Away are behind the times. There's something to be said about goddamn moving paintings . They also state that Brother Bear was hand drawn for a warm, organic feel. It's a shame they're in such a hurry to lose that.
Why not a mix of the two technologies? In keeping with the times, the 6-episode anime "FLCL" by Gainax was an entirely digital creation, while still being cell-based. No shortage of cutting edge techniques employed there. Made for a gorgeous DVD transfer, to boot.
Maybe this isn't a such bad thing. Maybe this will make room for other talented 2D cell artists to tread where the Mouse no longer fears to go. I've got my fingers crossed.
I keep trying to pick fights, but I can't shake this Excellent karma.
I heard this news a couple months ago from someone who works in the industry (albiet not at a very high level), and I thought he must have been misinformed.
Looks like it really is true, sadly. 2D animation is still great, though, as long as it has a good script.
The last few 2D offerings from Disney have not had very good scripts, while their 3D works have had good scripts. Not surprising that hte 3D films have done better.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
considering that every Pixar film has been a huge success, and the last animated cartoon Disney has put out that came close to any Pixar film was Aladin.
Of course, Disney films will continue to suck, CGI or not as long as they continue to do unoriginal, unimaginitive work. The reason Pixar has been successful is not because they do CGI, but because they don't rehash the same theme endlessly and they don't follow formulaic storytelling.
I swear PowerPoint is going to be the downfall of higher education in western society.
This commonly used technique has been in use for about 15 years. Its called cartoon-realistic computer animation (CRCA). It uses different mathematical projections than 3D, but shares color and lighting techniques. Disney has talked about this several times at computer conferences. Its earliest example I recall is the talking magic carpet in Aladdin. The wildebest stampede in Lion King (copied in Mulan, Dinosaur, and others) is another example. Large parts of recent Dreamworks cartons are CRCA.
The better computer graphics schools that train students for film of video games require a heavy dose of conventional arts in their programs. Students need to know about design, color, lighting, media, etc. They also need to know about how to analysis and write stories, realistic and funny characters, mythic heros, and so on. Because the computer graphics alone is only part of the the entire process.
I just wanted to say on the "original storyteller" claim that the story for "A Bug's Life" is essentially the same story used in "The Seven Samauri" and later recycled in "The Magnificent Seven"...
Disney will come out and have a press release stating they are doing away with hand drawn 2d animation and switching to all computer generated animation. People will ooo and ahh. Then their first movie under this change will come out and people will not like it and not go to see it. Disney will lose a ton of money and realize there is a time and place for everything and switch back to using a mix of hand drawn and computer generated like they do now.
Doesn't it stand to reason that disney shouldn't really have gotten much of a cut from it. I mean, you can either have you cake or eat it:
a) Pixar makes TS2, disney gets their usual lions-share of the profits, and this it should count as a contributed story
b) Pixar makes TS2, takes the majority of profit for themselves, disney doesn't count it as a contribution.
Sounds like RIAA business-methodology to me: you make us a product that makes us a sh*tload of money, but we get to choose whether it counts towards your contract or not. Oh, and no you can't use the ones we don't choose for yourself, your brain is our property.
If you take paragraph (a), you will find that in many movies it leads to paragraph (b). That is to say, you take a good idea that isn't quite complete, and do the fill with glitter and sparkles. Then, when the movie flops, you wonder why people weren't satisfied with your lack of plot when you threw so much into eye-candy.
Disney isn't much different from most other movie producers. Movies like "Terminator 3" and "Matrix Reloaded" don't go through the grinder simply because the producers don't care (they care enough that they must realize to some extent that sh*t content will eventually lead to profit loss), it's more that they can't connect the success of a movie with a plotline VS flashy effects.
As it stands, low-budget moviemaking is becoming more of a reality. You can make a movie with somewhat low-cost software, home PC's, and some real effort and time. In a few years, anyone with a video-camera (or a computer) and a good idea could be the next Kevin Smith or animated-movie creater (can't think of a specific reference at the moment).
Look at fan-made episodes, look at flash-movies. Disney is and other bloated dinosaurs are going to become extinct unless they change their focus, and the internet is going to make outside talent all the more apparent.
Regular motion picture film is already an odd thing; a machine with a lense and some moving parts which captures a series of 2D images of the 3D world which can later be projected as a moving picture? That works? Weird.
But when you go the next step and consider rooms full of people drawing single frames at a time to achieve the same end. .
Argh! That's so bizarre! You're kidding, right? Nobody would ever do something crazy like that, would they? That sort of effort is only undertaken by colonies of ants which are basically biological nano-bots with limited individual awareness, not by groups of people who come equipped all that extra thinking power. Rooms full of people scratching out hundreds of thousands of still images? It's mad!
I think it is because of this that animation still seems to me one of the most magical things I can imagine. It seems impossible, and yet, there it is.
3D animation projects like Monsters Inc, or Shrek, or Toys aren't the same sort of thing at all. Those are more like engineering projects using CAD programs. All based on mathematical algorithms. Digital versus analog. --Sure there is a heavy creative aspect involved, but all those films, despite their sharp comedic timing and bright visuals, felt stamped with the inhuman to me. Manufactured. They felt like clever simulations of art.
Maybe it's just because I'm from an older generation. Maybe the logical distinctions are merely emotionally based and hold no real objective meaning. But to me, classical animation seems like real art. It seems warm and magical. Computer animation leaves me cold.
As such, a good artist with a stick of graphite and a sheet of paper will always be able to amaze me. An artist with a mouse (rat?) and an expensive computer system will never be able to reach my soul.
I don't like digital photography either. Try this sometime. .
Spend a year being exposed only to digital camera images, (that's most of you, I suspect). Then have somebody hand to you a packet of paper slicks from a photo-lab of your non-computer savvy friend's holiday as captured on a 35 millimeter SLR, and thumb through those. You'll be blown away by just how much you missed but never realized.
-FL
Speaking of adult animation, when will Pixar release Final Fantasy 2?
Very insightful post. I love Pixar's films, but I wish they would have the courage of John Lasseter's convictions and finally try to make something as ambitious as 'Princess Mononoke' or 'Spirited Away'.
Pixar has been to date, for better or worse, a straight comedy shop. These movies are a blast to watch for all the reasons you cite. Still, I'd love to see their considerable skills devoted to the creaiton of something truly beautiful. Might it be pretentious? Possibly. It could also be great.
There is a creeping sense of conservatism to Pixar's films lately. You know how far out (not very) they are going to take you. The real thrill lately for me is simply watching the great lighting, colors and textures. Pixar still feels like a whole lot of unrealized potential. They haven't yet made their 'Fantasia' and certainly haven't made anything appoaching the level of a Miyazaki film.
I hope they get there someday and don't simply beat their winning formula into the ground trying to please Wall Street or Disney. I think the current distribution negotiations are critical for Pixar. Their financial independence from Disney should also give them creative independence to push much further than they've gone to date.
My $0.02
At the end of the movie Final Fantasy, my girlfriend at the time asked me, "That looked so perfect, are you sure it wasn't done with a computer?"
She didn't believe me when I told her, yes, in fact, it was.
Dreamworks already announced that they're giving up on 2D animation. The only major studio doing cel work now is Sony, which is gearing up to have a full feature animation department staffed by people who came over from both Disney and Dreamworks. They'll be doing CG, too, but one of their first major pictures will be Tam Lin, directed by Roger Allers and Brenda Chapman (The Lion King and Prince of Egypt) and written by Neil Gaiman, with conceptual art by Brian and Wendy Froud.
Disney isn't shifting from their cell shaded look at all. There aren't many videogames switching to cell shading, either.
What are you talking about? Easy karma.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I think this is exactly why Disney is without a clue these days. As the article pointed out, it's not being 3D that's made the pixar stuff so popular - and a lame idea will still be a lame movie no matter how it's animated.
True, Disney may be partly a victim of its own success. Many people do type-cast Disney animation to the point where they won't accept anything original from them (and those who do look for originality tend to dismiss Disney out of hand), but that's a corner Disney's been painting themselves into for decades now.
Coke introduced 'New Coke', people hated it and grew nostalgic for 'Old Coke'. So Coke brilliantly re-introduced 'Coke Classic'. Turns out 'Coke Classic' sales beat pre-'New Coke' sales. People still debate whether Coke created a conspiracy here or got lucky. And there's even room for more future mystique harvesting - people still think the 'Old Coke' tasted better than 'Coke Classic', so someday Coke could release 'Coke Old Fashioned' or something and make more money selling unhealthy water crammed with as much sugar (12 teaspoons) as science will allow.
Anyway, Disney's doing the same thing. People will long for the good old days of hand drawn animation now long gone. Pretty soon, Disney will designate movies as '100% hand drawn' and artificially add value and mystique to the same old thing they've been doing before.
Does it hurt to hear them lying? Was this the only world you had?
I wrote:
They have to be fairly widely-known movies that the majority of people on /. are likely to have seen, otherwise it's not a fair contest. I could easily name a film done by a friend of mine while he was at film school, and you'd have no way of challenging that.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
media...
I thought the same way at first. The geek in me knows the both sets of content will fit nicely; however, having kids puts a different spin on the matter.
One copy of media gets destroyed and you have...
Nothing!
I am not sure the extra DVD really costs them that much, and I sure don't mind storing it.
Blogging because I can...
For an excellent 2D CG cartoon check out FLCL.