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."

11 of 337 comments (clear)

  1. Walt Disney by dolo666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!

    1. Re:Walt Disney by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Interesting
      He likely would not have liked Pixar's pushy behaviour

      Pixar films has made like 1.5 billion dollars in ticket sales alone. That's not including merchandising, cross-licensing, and home entertainment. In that same time, what has Disney done with their animation films? Between Lilo and Stitch and Mulan, all other Disney films have done very poorly compared to Pixar and even Dreamworks. I think they've earned the right to be a bit pushy.

      While Disney might have one of the most powerful marketing divisions in media, somehow, I suspect that all things outside film making mean little to Pixar. Sure they like the money that merchandising might bring in, they know they can get a better deal somewhere else. So if you're Pixar, do you stick with a 50/50 deal or do you shop around for a better one knowing that your partner needs you more than you need them?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Walt Disney by DavesWorld334 · · Score: 5, Informative

      ---quote---
      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.h tm l?fromint=1

      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/d nflash/sep200 1/nf20010928_5607.htm
      http://www.macdirectory.com /ntrvu/Eisner/Index.htm l
      http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/columnist/l ieb erman/2003-02-09-pixar_x.htm

  2. I'll miss the hand-drawn movies.. by smilingirl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  3. 2D Computer generated? by jokkebk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  4. CG != 3D by obsidianpreacher · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  5. Re:Pixar by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nobody, even Lassiter and Jobs, really expected that Pixar would end up being a better and more original storyteller than Disney. Yet they did. Most Disney work is derivative. From Snow White to Treasure Planet, the story came from elsewhere. "Toy Story" and "Monsters, Inc" are entirely original. That's an achievement. Pixar has a good team. What makes them successful is their original concepts, not their All Renderman All the Time style. Monsters, Inc. would have worked as cel animation. Other technologies yield more realistic animation (see Stuart Little, which was done in Maya).

  6. Re:moving towards a paperless system by fenix+down · · Score: 5, Insightful

    See, that makes sense, but they already did that with Lilo & Stich, I believe. All the DVD special features stuff was all them on the Macs and tablets, anyway.

    I'd like a article from competent people rather than USA Today, who clearly don't have a clue what the hell they're talking about. Are they abandoning 2D or hand-drawing? USA Today makes it sound like 2D in general is getting thrown out, which is idiotic any way you slice it.

    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.

    Not that using computers is a problem, but doing things in 2D gives you stylistic options you don't get doing 3D. You have to make an actual 3D model when you're doing CG, with 2D you can bend space-time and make it look good. With CG you're stuck with basically a puppet show, albeit a much more elaborate puppet show, but you have to go at it like a physical place or else it looks ridiculous.

  7. Pressures of the market, my fanny by jht · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
  8. Re:Walt loved technology, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
  9. Poor summary by Kevan_moran · · Score: 5, Informative
    May's summary seems rather poor to me.

    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.