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."
Pixar was known in the film circles for their animated and award winning shorts. All Disney did was distribute Toy Story, it's mostly the movie itself that made Pixar famous. It can probably be argued that having Disney involved in merchandising and advertising did have a positive effect, but a) that wouldn't have mattered if they hadn't made a good movie, and b) that would have been a part of a deal with any distributor.
In other words, Pixar was MADE by Toy Story, which was made by Pixar exclusively. Disney was just the marketing tool who set the deal heavily in their own favor because they didn't think CGI movies would be as big as regular animation. (Of course, it's the plot/story that matters, but few distributors understand that.)
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
Beauty and the Beast came out in 1991 and used CG in the ballroom scene, well before Aladdin. It's considered Disney's first use of CG: when Belle and Beast are dancing around. The camera zooms in on them dancing (actually drawn) and pulls out on a CG ballroom.
-Trillian
uh no, that's just an urban legend.
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.
According to IMDB, it was the The Rescuers Down Under, made in 1990.
Karma: Can only be portioned out by the Cosmos.
Walt Disney never drew a single cartoon character! He couldn't even draw Mickey Mouse when kids asked for his signature. It's a well-known fact. So what fantasy-land did you get your story from?
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 has a system called CAPS. It's a computer based ink and paint system that I believe was developed in the 80's... By PIXAR... Ed Catmull anyway.
The Disney film "The Black Cauldron" made use of 3D generated elements. "The Great Mouse Detective" I believe is another one.
It's mandatory to wash your hands before returning to the land of Dairy Queen.
Toy Story was shot on a Budget of around $30Million USD. When Pixar pitched it to Disney, they had asked for at least $5Million more (but probably closer to $40Million total), but Disney said it was an outrageous price for animation and refused. Pixar had to lower the cost in the end. After the deal was inked and signed, Steve looked up the records and found out that Disney ROUTINELY does movies for way more than that.
Pocahontas, which came out the same year as Toy Story, had a $55Million budget. As a result, Pixar felt screwed and Jobs pushed harder for a better deal the next time around. Of course, Disney had better compulsion to accept for a second movie, seeing as Fox was making rival "Antz" as a CG animation to compete with their "A Bug's Life."
---quote---
h tm l?fromint=1
d nflash/sep200 1/nf20010928_5607.htmm /ntrvu/Eisner/Index.htm ll ieb erman/2003-02-09-pixar_x.htm
He likely would not have liked Pixar's pushy behaviour, however.
-endquote---
Walt likely wouldn't have treated Pixar so incredibly poorly, as Eisner has.
After Toy Story 2 was produced by Pixar as a full-feature, at Disney's insistence, Eisner then shoved the terms of the contract down Pixar's throat (long-story shortened, Disney assumed any sequels to Pixar films would be Disney type sequels, which are always low budget direct-to-video and usually considered crap by the film market; for this reason apparently, the contract specifies sequels do not count towards the five pictures Pixar is contracted to deliver under the current deal).
http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/302/302352p1.
Of course, Eisner took Disney's full cut for Toy Story 2, even though it "didn't count". Eisner further thumbed his nose by pointing out Disney could produce a third Toy Story film whenever it (Disney) liked.
I dearly, very dearly, hope Pixar walks after the way Disney's treated them. I hate seeing Disney's name on Pixar's work. It further infuriates me so many mundane folks don't understand Toy Story and Finding Nemo are *PIXAR* movies, not Disney movies.
I very much want Pixar to emulate Dreamworks (or Lucas with Fox if you like); production but cutting straight distribution deals with existing studio distribution muscle. Aside from the money, Pixar's storytellers *deserve* to own the stories and characters they've breathed life in so brilliantly. That Disney has ownership over Buzz Lightyear, Dorrie the Blue Fish, Flick the Ant, and even Sully the Monster is a creative travesty.
Any way you want to spin the story, the facts remain the same. Disney can't put a picture together since Katzenburg left, and Pixar hasn't hit less than a homerun yet. Pixar doesn't need Disney, and should walk just to show they're not going to reward those who treat them so poorly.
Other References:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/
http://www.macdirectory.co
http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/columnist/
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.
Have we all forgotten "Tron" (1982)?
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.)
Fox didn't make "Antz", Dreamworks did (and it was produced at PDI). The person at the helm of it all was Jeffry Katzenburg. Disney accused him of stealing the story for "A Bug's Life" because he had been head of Disney's animation group and then departed to found Dreamworks.
Actually, I've seen interviews with Pixar folks (John Lasseter?) who praised Disney's contributions to the Toy Story script. They claimed that while the animation would have been just as superb, the story would have suffered without Disney, and thus the movie would not have been as good. I think it's misleading to claim that Disney was merely a distributor.