Disney Shuts Down 2D Animation Studio

sofakingl writes "As mentioned in this Slashdot article, Disney has been planning to shut down their 2D animation studios. Just recently, Disney shut down their Florida studio, with some animators transferred to Disney's Burbank studio, and others being left out of a job. This has brought criticism from Roy Disney, the nephew of Walt Disney. And to top it off, Disney may be facing new competition from Legacy Animation, a new animation studio that was formed by ex-Disney animators."

Comments

It's an insane decision.

[Teddy Beartuzzi]

Disney thinks that it's computer animation that has led to the success of Finding Nemo, Shrek etc.

It's good story, humour and characters that have led to success. Their hand animated flicks bombed because they were bad, not because they were 2D.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[krymsin01]

Mabey some of those animators, now that they have some time on their hands, will decide to group together to work on some non-family animation here in the US. Limiting the scope of animation to family friendly themes is such a waste of the artform, in my opinion.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[jdifool]

Disney is not even better in 3D animation. Basically, the 3D cartoons were produced by Disney. At least Toy Story and Finding Nemo have been done by Pixar Studios.

What this seems to mean is that Disney is turning into a production studio, instead of a genuine creator of cartoons. As said by the Pixar site, in February 1997, Pixar entered into the Co-Production Agreement (which superseded the Feature Film Agreement) with Disney pursuant to which we, on an exclusive basis, agreed to produce five original computer-animated feature-length theatrical motion pictures for distribution by Disney. One might guess that Disney will try to keep its dominant position by signing such agreements with the creative animation studios now that it's been recurrently proved (since the Lion King, mostly) that Disney 2D creations suck... Too bad I'll have to keep my old device to show Bambi to my children... :)

jdif

Re:It's an insane decision.

[LostCluster]

"Bomb" is a relative term in the movie industry. A truely flop or bomb or dud movie is defined as a movie that cannot make in gross revenues what it cost to produce. Computer technology is reaching the point where it's soon going to be cheaper to produce a Pixar movie than to pay hand animators to make a 2d movie...

Re:It's an insane decision.

[angusr]

The traditional side of Disney has never really succeeded in finding that balance between entertaining the kids and entertaining adults. Most of their 2D work has, for whatever reason, been extremely child-centric of late. They stuff they've released with Pixar, on the other hand, has got the balance right - kids love the bright, colourful characters, the slapstick, the excitement, and the adults with them love the sly humour, the in jokes, the bits that go over the heads of the kids.

You can't please everyone all of the time, but Toy Story and Finding Nemo just about managed it. I can't believe that a company with as much industry experience as Disney would thing that the style of animation has anything to do with it... I mean, wasn't one of the biggest animated hits in recent years "South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut"? Not only 2D but not even good 2D...

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shrek was good?

Seriously, um... All these novelty flicks have their place, and will no doubt manage to go down as classics of the early days of 3D, on par with Mortimer Mouse, if not 'better.'

I'd still like to think there's room there for something a little more... well, a little less direct-to-marketing for the kids, and a little more ambitious for the adults. But then, even as a child of the '80s (raised on the third generation of postwar marketing tie-ins, you could say), I can't help shaking my walking stick and sighing that the present generation appears *even more* groomed to tilt towards this sort of thing (ironically, for some of the same justifications I had when I was 12 - deep flicks can come off 'too polished,' or not populist enough... But that was before the studios took crappy, affordable animation and turned it into a run of XTREME-everything productions that made Hanna Barbera's '70s formulas look tame)...

I guess what I'm digging at is that *someone's* got to be out there mining the Fantasia and All Dogs Go to Heaven territory, even if Land Before Time did sorta suck. ;) Maybe it won't or can't hit the market penetration of The Matrix, but it'd be nice to have a little diversity back in the market.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Hes Nikke]

aside from the 1st 2 or 3 episodes,* South Park has been entirely CG, and i would assume that the movie is the same way.

*the 1st few episodes of South Park used a claymation technique with... construction paper...

Re:It's an insane decision.

[krymsin01]

goatse.cx link, not space.com

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Golias]

After seeing the art and animation from such films as "Tarzan" "Hercules" and "The Emperor's New Groove", I put it to you that many of the Disney animators deserved to be laid off. Feel free to hold whatever opinion you like about the writing and voice acting, but the bottom line is that those movies looked like ass.

Animated feature-length movies are not made for adult audiences very often in the US because the truth is, they just don't sell very well. You could make the case that movies like "Final Fantasy" and "Titan AE" bombed because they were painfully dull and poorly written, but the fact remains that there has yet to be a successful American full-length animated feature which wasn't considered a "family" movie in the US. Ever. The closest you could possibly get is "Heavy Metal", which enjoys a cult following (mostly among 12-year old kids and stoners, both of whom like looking at the cartoon boobies.)

Re:It's an insane decision.

[angusr]

Indeed, I was aware of that... but it's 2D animation produced on a computer. Almost all 2D animation is this days, including at Disney.

The argument isn't traditonal cel animation versus computer animation, it's 2D versus 3D. And just as you can produce 3D animation traditionally (the original UK Max Headroom feature, claymation, etc) you can produce 2D animation on computer.

So the medium isn't the issue here.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[LostCluster]

Yes, but South Park has always used a cheap 2D CG to simulate the original construction paper effects. It's the style of the show that carried into the movie.

Even The Simpsons is mostly computer drawn, with what hand animation work is still left done overseas, and with the exception of one particular special segment is entirely 2D.

Nearly Anime is also 2D... "3D Anime" almost seems like a contradiction in terms.

But notice that Disney has no entry in the adults-only animation sphere. Well, they tried, Touchstone (a Disney unit) was involved in The Critic. But, simply put, the legendary Disney brand can't do adults-only projects. And that's what's moving in the 2D animation world...

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad I'll have to keep my old device to show Bambi to my children.

Uh ... I'm sorry to tell you that that's illegal in almost all western countries.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[krymsin01]

How much money a film makes in the US is not the best indicator of the quality of that film. With that in mind, there have been adult-oriented animated movies in the US that have fared pretty well. Waking Life by Richard Linklater is an example. While not traditional 2d animation, this movie uses a 2d-like animation techinque as a tool to create a sureal, dream-like texture to offset it's philosophical questions. Perhaps if fewer people worried about the money, more people would go down this path. And if more people did that, mabey they'd make better movies, and they might then make it possible for more people to make money in the same fashion. Animation lends itself to certain styles of storytelling, namely science fiction, fantasy, and horror. With it, you can convey a lot more with greater style, in my opinion, than your typical live-action style.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[KillerLoop]

Great goatse.cx link, very inspired way to redirect.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[clickety6]

yet to be a successful American full-length animated feature which wasn't considered a "family" movie in the US.

Beavis and Butthead do America - think it mae around $80 million which isn't too shabby - and definitely not one for the liitle kiddies!

South Park Movie - also did around the $75 million mark.

Don't sound too shabby to me!

Re:It's an insane decision.

[t0qer]

Mabey some of those animators, now that they have some time on their hands, will decide to group together to work on some non-family animation here in the US.

Yes I for one vote they make a sequel to Fritz The Cat.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Threni]

I just hope that some of the technically amazing people who worked for Disney can be set free to produce material for adults. Kids cartoons are fine, but what's with this Nintendoid attitude that cartoons are only for children?

I'd love to see an animated feature about, say, 9/11, or space exploration.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Anonymous Coward]

Waking Life was horrible.

Off topic, I know. Not a criticism of your taste in movies, either. It's a rare movie (Blair Witch, and Episode One perhaps being the only other recent examples) that makes me want to walk out when I've been dying for weeks to see it.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[wheany]

those movies looked like ass.

Well, at least Disney tries to make their films look different from each other.

Every Don Bluth film has looked like the others. Dreamworks has the same problem.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Tokerat]

Which is exactly what Disney did, they fired the guys with paintbrushes and now the computer people are all that's left. You'll still see 2D cartoons, but no one will be drawing them anymore, they'll be dragging Bezier curve points like every Flash animator on Newgrounds.

Not that I don't enjoy Newgrounds, but Walt must be spinning in his cryo-tube.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[bogado]

Ok so now they will be able to send more crappy 3d animation movies to the wild. They won't bomb so hard, because they were cheaper, but at some level they will bomb.

This would help them much less then if they had made a new writing and scripting unit. Disney has a great advantage in their side, their name is as strong as a animation studio can be. They are destroying this with each launch, at the same time Pixar and Aardman (chicken run and wallance and gromit) are getting their names.

If this keeps going in that direction Disney soon will be an amusing park and nothing much more.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[gnalre]

Call me what you want, but actually I thought Tarzan" "Hercules" and "The Emperor's New Groove" were actually quite good.

At least they were original.

The problem is more there latest offerings. You know the ones. The one with 2 at the end. I was forced to sit through Cinderella 2 with my daughter recently and it was the most shocking piece of crud ever. It would not be so bad if it was only for video, but no Jungle book 2 and tigger thr movie made it to the big screen.

They seem to run out of people with original ideas willing to take risks.

3D is not the answer. Sack the execs and the accountants and hire some decent script writes and concentrate on making one good movie every two years instead of 4 bad ones in a year

Re:It's an insane decision.

[gl4ss]

well, they don't say they're going to dump int totally. pure hand animation is expensive, very expensive if you want it to look _good_(when shooting for a 'realistic' world like usually in disneys movie cartoons). expect to see a lot of going to the direction of treaseure planet(mixing traditional animation with cgi - like the one character that had a cgi hand and leg) and seeing the computers crawl into places in the production line that you would never guess them being there, but they save quite a lot of money(especially if talent isn't cheap and the animators know their worth..).

Re:It's an insane decision.

[fuzzix]

" How much money a film makes in the US is not the best indicator of the quality of that film."

Indeed. Not a box office success but Bill Plympton's I Married A Strange Person is an incredible piece of work - recommended.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[mshiltonj]

Beavis and Butthead do America - think it mae around $80 million which isn't too shabb

No, it made $63,118,386

South Park Movie - also did around the $75 million mark.

No, it made $52,037,603

Name three more. I dare you. Non-children's animated feature films very rarely get made in America.

There's Heavy Metal. I think Aeon Flux deserves a mention. Even though it was never a feature film, it was a whole different class than The Simpsons.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[perly-king-69]

They seem to run out of people with original ideas willing to take risks.

The shareholders don't want them taking risks with their money. They want Cinderella 3: Rise of the Sisters, they want tie-ins with McDonalds, they want safe, easy, money.

Two years' worth of criticall acclaimed, but poorly viewed films will see the stock price slide and credit rating disappear. The people who own the company have no interest in it other than as a cash cow. You can't be dangerous and edgy as a public company.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[gnalre]

I understand what you say, but critically acclaimed, does not necesarlly equate to poorly viewed.

On the other hand if you keep creating offensive smelly things, people will catch on and stop going anyway. No audience, no tie ins no safe money. Not only that but you lose your reputation, and thats something which you may never get back.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[perly-king-69]

On the other hand if you keep creating offensive smelly things, people will catch on and stop going anyway.

Wewill catch on my friend, but the great unwashed probably won't. Name the most succesful food outlets in the Western world: McD, Burger King, KFC. Nutritionally poor, unhealthy and cheap. I rest my case.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Daengbo]

Nearly Anime is also 2D... "3D Anime" almost seems like a contradiction in terms.
Can I get some 3D Hentai, please?
No, really. I mean it.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Anonymous Coward]

That didn't come to mind while I was writting that, but that was an excedingly good movie.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Fred IV]

Dated, I know, but a lot of Ralph Bakshi's work such as Fritz the Cat and Wizards continues to have a cult following. If we're getting away from feature films, I think The Maxx deserves a mention as well.

2D Animation is just another form of storytelling, I think there will always be room for interesting stories regardless of the medium used to tell them. It's not an either-or decision.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[jdbo]

Someone mentioned "Fritz the Cat", but didn't point out that it was a huge hit at the time, esp. for an "underground" animated film.

$25 million isn't much today, but in 1972 that's quite the take (recoup-ing production + marketing costs over 25-times over is never too shabby!)

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Fred IV]

Too late. I'd love to see a modern version though.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[swestcott]

yea and the sound track Kicks Ass

Re:It's an insane decision.

[PommeFritz]

Spot on. I'm a big fan of animated movies and in my top three there are two movies (both by Hayao Myazaki): 'Spirited Away' and 'Princess Mononoke'. They are beautifully drawn classic '2d' movies. I've seen various 3d CG movies (FF, titan AE) that don't come close to those two, not within miles.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[CuriHP]

While there can certainly be a quality film that does not make a lot of money, if these types of films prove to be unprofitably, noone will make them.

In addition to being an art form, films are an investment for their backers. If they don't pay off, noone invests.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Cappy Red]

Tarzan and Hercules were original?

If I'd seen or knew more about the Emperor's New Groove, I could probably drag up something there too.(aside from a very superficial and hardly indicting reference in the title)

Nevertheless, it is a fairly safe bet that any theatrically released Disney animated feature will be based on an existing story(out of copyright :), and include a list of characters determined by formula.(One true-blue sidekick, approximately two, but possibly more, comic relief tag-alongs, and one villain's sidekick whose role likely spills over into comic relief tag-along. There might be as many as three comic tag-along villains.) I could probably do more, if I kept at it.

Nevertheless, you're right about the cheapquels-- they're the real bad news. The cheapquels receive less care than the features, and they're released more often.



*honk*

Re:It's an insane decision.

[CuriHP]

But how can it be cheaper? They added a whole other dimension! That's got to cost something. :-)

Re:It's an insane decision.

[DarkSarin]

No, not me.

In fact, I don't want to see the Little Mermaid at all. Ever. Disney ruined a perfectly good fairy tale in that case. Even if I was into pr0n, I wouldn't want to see "The Little Mermaid does Atlantis in 56-4D"!

You see, the thing about the Little Mermaid is that in the original story SHE DIES for being an IDIOT that doesn't follow directions!!!! Like most of the original fairy tales, this one is sad, and is meant to instruct little kids what to do, not make them feel good.

Disney, in most of thier reproductions of classic fairy tales, have played with the story to the point that only the most liberal interpretation allows them to use the original name.

Now, if Disney wants to tell the story of a mermaid (who always wears shells over her boobs (which, though I am not female, still sounds painful--imagine the chafing!), and is willing to trust anyone in order to get her "one true love" (what garbage), even a rather fat meroctupus(???what is up with Ursula anyway?)), THAT'S FINE, but they shouldn't be allowed to call it "The Little Mermaid", after the original, where all those stupid things are missing (it has its own garbage, but never mind that).

Okay, I know I am ranting, but you know what? I don't care. As near as I can tell Disney currently has no talent working for them. Pixar does (witness A Toy Story and Finding Nemo), as do several other companies (Spirited Away is an awesome story--my son (who was about 18mos. old at the time) laughed hysterically at the witch in the house (whatever her name was)). But the folks at disney haven't put anything decent out in a while (Tarzan being the best it quite some time), but IMO, the Lion King was a pointless waste of time. And not even very entertaining at that!

Okay, I'm done. If anyone want's to borrow my soapbox, its free now.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[diablobynight]

Personally I didn't think Final Fantasy or Titan A.E. were boring. I just think there is a stigmatism on what most people would call anime. People have grouped all anime movies together and talk about them as one genre, which I think is as absurd as putting The Boondock Saints and Fried Green Tomatoes in the same category because they were both made with live people and cameras.

Animation is an excellent way to make a movie. You don't have actors bitching about a closeup, you don't have to hire expensive pretty boys to fill roles and you can show anything in an Anime movie, no matter how dangerous, or impossible, in can be brought to you through animation.

Princess Monoke, not a childrens theme

Akira, definitely not for children

Vampire Hunter D

These were all pretty good titles, and I am sure Akira did extremely well on DVD.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Dalroth]

How can we name movies when nobody makes them? It's a chicken and egg scenario. Nobody makes them because they don't sell, and they don't sell because nobody makes them. It's no differnt than games on Linux.

Bryan

Re:It's an insane decision.

[nelsonal]

I think the bigger reason is that 3d animation is cheaper, render farm vs lots of expensive animators, which only added to the perceived customer preference.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[GeckoX]

I'm pretty sure the emperor's new groove is loosely based on the old kids story the emperor's new clothes.

However, it seems to me that it is _very_ loosely based there ;)

Re:It's an insane decision.

[jejones]

It's good story, humour and characters that have led to success. Their hand animated flicks bombed because they were bad, not because they were 2D.

Exactly right. Lilo and Stitch won big because it was an officially-sanctioned "skunk works" type project, designed to not go through the committees and focus groups. It was the vision of its creators, and it was wonderful and made money. (The sequel was another matter...sigh.) I guess Disney didn't learn diddly squat from it.

So...I guess what I have to say to Disney is this: MEEGA NA LA KWEESTA!

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Richthofen80]

I beg to differ. While Titan AE didn't do well as far as box office revenues, I thought it wasn't at all painfully dull nor was it poorly written. And it wasn't artistically poor, either. I saw a high definition version of it on HBO or showtime (can't remember which) and I thought it was awesome.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[chthon]

I think that the main problem is just that the Disney Studio's are run by managers and beancounters.

When Walt Disney was alive, the company had in him a talented man, who had eye for detail, knew about popular and classical music, and probably also had the talent to find people with the artistic and entertaining talents he needed to make nice movies.

But Walt Disney, after his death, was not replaced by someone with the same capacities, so you get a gradual decline of quality, and managers and beancounters think that they can compensate that with quantity.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Golias]

Nobody makes them because they don't sell, and they don't sell because nobody makes them.

Not really. I could name dozens of animated features that failed miserably. (Lord of the Rings, anybody?)

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Golias]

Although with Mononoke Hime, they hired expensive pretty boys to do the voice work anyway, because star power is still the most reliable way to sell movie tickets.

Okay, maybe "pretty boy" is not really a valid way to describe Billy Bob Thornton, but you get the idea.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[gfxguy]

You are absolutely right. Let's look at last year: Lilo and Stitch was supposed to be their "low budget" effort for the year, and did surprisingly well, sparking a spin-off series on Disney channel and lot's of merchandise.

Treasure Planet was their "big budget" holiday release - using both traditional and 3D computer animation. It wasn't bad, I took my kids to it, it was entertaining... it just wasn't very good, either. Frankly, I'd rather then see a good Treasure Island. The end result, though, is it was a bomb - it lost a ton of money. No spin-offs. Lots of left over merchandise that either no one bought or they sold at a loss.

Let's look at the differences: Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Lilo and Stitch - all great original stories with the right amount of humor. Treasure Planet - take an old classic and try to modernize it because kids today don't want to hear about sailing ships as much as they want to hear about space ships. If they are going to take an old classic, they ought to leave it that way - it worked for all their other traditionally animated movies. That's why it's called a "classic".

Re:It's an insane decision.

[hendridm]

> Their hand animated flicks bombed because they were bad, not because they were 2D.

I was thinking the same thing. It might be because the CG films are expensive to make, so they have to make sure it's a blockbuster and not just employing animators. It's similar all over the industry. People don't go to the movies as much anymore because it's expensive, so Hollywood releases fewer movies and the movies they do release have to be blockbusters. Most people I know don't go to the movies casually anymore, they only go when it's an "event" (X2, LOTR, Matrices, etc).

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Anonymous Coward]

South Park was done with 3d software.

Here is a link that talks about it:
http://www.arstechnica.com/etc/3q99/southpark /sp-i nterview-3.html

Kent Mein
mein at cs.umn.edu

Re:It's an insane decision.

[The Spie]

>>Exactly right. Lilo and Stitch won big because it was an officially-sanctioned "skunk works" type project, designed to not go through the committees and focus groups. It was the vision of its creators, and it was wonderful and made money. (The sequel was another matter...sigh.) I guess Disney didn't learn diddly squat from it.

There was no lesson to be learned. Once it hit the theaters, it became Disney "product" and thus underwent the same treatment as virtually every other Disney movie since The Little Mermaid: movie, then direct-to-video sequel, then TV series. Aladdin blazed the trail, The Lion King paved the road, and others have followed, with the Pocahontas series premiering later this year (I fully expect it to join a Brother Bear series in a Native American Hour block). Lilo and Stitch, though, took the most cynical path of all: the sequel was not only a badly-done set-up for the TV series, but demanded that the series follow a very specific formula, which has made the series pretty dire.

Yeah, sometimes they change the order around and/or leave out steps (The Little Mermaid in the first case, Hercules in the latter), but that's not the issue. The point is that artistic creativity doesn't matter when Disney knows they can make money for themselves and their cable networks by following set steps to maximize the revenue from each and every project. They treat animation as commodity, not art. So why are we surprised at the decision to close the 2D studios?

Re:It's an insane decision.

[nakedsource]

Low cost Japanese animation is doing that already. From kid stuff to hard core x rated and everything in between. You just won't see much of that on the big screen like it is in Japan.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[cubicledrone]

Add OAVs to your request and I can list billions of dollars worth of revenue from various anime series.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[UnHolyRam]

It's not that they have ran out of people with original ideas willing to take risks, It's that the current CEO of Disney, is a money grubbing suit, who doesn't care about company anymore, and doesn't want to spend the time discovering original ideas.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[cubicledrone]

The shareholders don't want them taking risks with their money.

Then the shareholders should invest in municipal bonds. Business is risky. Get over it.

The people who own the company have no interest in it other than as a cash cow

That's the real problem. The "concerns of the shareholders" are a straw man.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[cubicledrone]

There was no lesson to be learned.

Yes, there was. The lesson was to let writers write and let animators animate, and get the fucking fat ass middle management bean-salad eating fucks out of the fucking way.

the sequel was not only a badly-done set-up for the TV series, but demanded that the series follow a very specific formula, which has made the series pretty dire.

Brought to you by middle management inc.(tm)(c)

Re:It's an insane decision.

[mshiltonj]

We're talking about _American_ animation.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[usrerco]

> but the fact remains that there has yet to be a
> successful American full-length animated feature
> which wasn't considered a "family" movie in the US.
> Ever.

Fritz The Cat: $700k to make, grossed $90 million. Definite profit for the film company. BIG hit in 1970.
Not sure if Bakshi is bending the numbers there, but that's straight from the horses' mouth; (p.45, "Tenacity of the Cockroach", interview with R.Bakshi, ISBN 0-609--80991-1)

I was floored when I saw it as a kid. It was like bugs bunny on PCP, armed and naked.

I dug Bakshi's other feature animated films too; American Pop, Hey Good Lookin, Coonskin. None of those are "family entertainment" (probably not considered 'hits' either, but still great) And some liked 'Wizards' and 'Lord of the Rings'. Not sure the numbers on those. All features, all animated, all american.

> The closest you could possibly get is "Heavy Metal"

Hoo, there are a few good sequences, but so much of the animation was Filmation quality-wise (read: bad)

*digress*
At least WDP's Hercules had some good character design vis-a-vis Gerald Scarfe. But I have to see past the Disney characters to enjoy it for that. I still have the excerpted animated sequences from "The Wall" (Scarfe un-Disneified); those are absolute classic sequences of animation. Those two flowers having sex was intense.. must've taken them forever to animate. And the eagle and marching hammers kicked ass. Too bad there wasn't more of that animation, and less of that kid running around in trenches.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[jterry94]

I also liked Titan AE. In my opinion, it also had an excellent musical score, to go along with interesting animation.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Organized Konfusion]

Beavis and Butthead, Southpark the movie?

they were a success were they not.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Anonymous Coward]

troll? is the mod on crack? now I'm going to have to do metamod for the next few weeks hoping to catch this person.

-- gid

Re:It's an insane decision.

[red floyd]

Didn't they use part of the Stargate score?

Re:It's an insane decision.

[jafac]

I agree - performance-wise, they've been the walking dead for the last 5 years. The likes of Alladin, or The Lion King (admittedly a ripoff) were followed by formulaic cheap tripe.

This is probably a good move for the company. They already bled the talent from the studio years ago.

They'll probably reverse this decision in another 5 years, but by then it will be too late, and they'll be unable to find the talent to re-build what they had, and they'll falter for a few more.

That said - Disney's animation and entertainment was the central draw. The theme parks capitalized on that, but they couldn't possibly reach the same number of customers with just parks.
Once the accountants were turned loose, it became a cynical, money-driven enterprise. The heart and soul of Disney have died, and the body is soon to follow.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[cubicledrone]

We're talking about _American_ animation.

No such thing, unless you mean Pixar.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Anonymous Coward]

Come to think of it, why would japanese animation be any different? millions if not billions are spent by American's for anime. You really think the consumers care where it came from? As long as the story is still good, I don't think it matters at all. That just proves the market is there, just no American companies are exploiting it.

Of course maybe anime sells so well because of the tenticle rape scenes et all, something that no tight-assed American company would be caught dead doing.

-- gid

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Doctor Faustus]

I actually liked The Tigger Movie. I thought Piglet's Big Movie kind of sucked, but my son still liked it.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[AbbyNormal]

True, but these were based on popular "Sit-Com" shows. I'm kinda glad "The Simpsons" have held off from this approach.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[CGP314]

Nevertheless, it is a fairly safe bet that any theatrically released Disney animated feature will be based on an existing story(out of copyright :), and include a list of characters determined by formula.(One true-blue sidekick, approximately two, but possibly more, comic relief tag-alongs, and one villain's sidekick whose role likely spills over into comic relief tag-along. There might be as many as three comic tag-along villains.) I could probably do more, if I kept at it.

There is more comic relief than movie to be relieved from.

-Colin Gregory Palmer

--
In London? Need a Physics Tutor?

American Weblog in London

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Waking Life is one of my favourite films of all time. It doesn't surprise me you didn't like it. I think one really has to like philosphical films, or plotless films to like Waking Life. A lot of people who criticize it just don't like that "type" of films...

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Roogna]

One thing to note here, all three movies you listed came from the Burbank studios. Not the Florida studios, which is what has been completely closed. Florida studio's gave us "Mulan", "Lilo & Stitch", and most recently "Brother Bear". Which granted were not all completely original stories, or at least weren't in Mulan's case, were all absolutely beautiful to watch and actually _did_ have good well written stories.

So while it may be true that some of Disney's animator's deserve to be laid off (Who put a chain-smoker in Atlantis? That person should be shot! Talk about no purpose in the story.) Disney has it seems gone and laid off the wrong set of people.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[delus10n0]

Maybe for the preview. The "Battle At The Pyramid" track from the score is quite possibly one of the most used pieces of music for trailers. Not to mention a short snippit of score from "Judge Dredd". Weird, eh?

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

But the modern business world is very short term oriented. What matters is how much MONEY is made NOW! Just do something to make some money and if it results in losses in the future, well, just jump ship or change the company name, or just use an advertising campaign. Even investors are short-term oriented. For instance, many investors (including institutional ones) sell out if things look bad.

Reputation used to mean something at one time but is less important now. Apart from the fact that a lot of industries are monoplized or oligopolized now, companies leverage their brands effectively. Consumers have no idea who owns what brands. So companies shift risky stuff to certain brands (away from safe valuable ones) and then if that fails, just re-introduce another brand. The safe brand is never really impacted.

You'll notice this in movies (as well as many other sectors like cars--do you know who owns Mazda? How about BMW?). For example, the Disney brand is good so Disney never does anything risky or controversial with it. So all the risky films are pushed off to the Touchstone label. If the Touchstone label loses its reputation, Disney will just introduce another one (let's call it NewDreams) and use that. The consumers have no idea what the hell is going on.

In addition to all that, major studios that you might think are seperate are actually owned by the same parent company. Or one film might be co-produced by multiple companies. If you want some information on the concentration of media companies (it is not limited to media but other sectors too), check out this The Nation article (old but relevant as ever).

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not saying brands are useless. In fact, some companies are valued solely based on brand. Companies like Coca-Cola and Nike derive their value from their brands. My point, however, is that brands are manipulated more easily nowadays. They are not what they meant 50 years ago. If you think KFC sucks, you might go and buy food at Taco Bell and not realize that they are the same companies.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:It's an insane decision.

[delus10n0]

Titan A.E. was a great film, but it went a little over budget and didn't quite generate back the revenue it took to create. Fox closed the studios after that (which was a stupid decision, if you ask me.) Don Bluth has made some excellent animated films, and deals with serious subjects better than Disney would. An American Tail, Anastasia, Secret of NIMH, etc... are all great.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Then the shareholders should invest in municipal bonds. Business is risky. Get over it.

Yes... but there is nothing wrong with them demanding less risk from their investments. If you own the company, you can do whatever the hell you want with it.

That's the real problem. The "concerns of the shareholders" are a straw man.

Concerns of the shareholders are very real. That is capitalism after all. If you owned stock in a company, your concern matters--and does influence things (as long as you own a significant chunk of it).

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:It's an insane decision.

[cayenne8]

"Nevertheless, it is a fairly safe bet that any theatrically released Disney animated feature will be based on an existing story(out of copyright :)"

What old stories were the Aristocrats, Lady and The Tramp based from?

Re:It's an insane decision.

[cayenne8]

"I still have the excerpted animated sequences from "The Wall" (Scarfe un-Disneified); those are absolute classic sequences of animation."

I have to agree. As I understand it there are other animated sequences like this from the actual 'Wall' concerts that were projected on the wall they built on stage. Wish to hell they'd finally release the filmed concerts of 'The Wall' as PF performed....Not many people got to see them, and I hear these shows were phenominal....

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Casshan-Robot Hunter]

I think one could hardly call Tarzan (written by Edgar Rice Burroughs, published in 1914) and Hercules (Greek mythology) original.

I will concede The Emperor's New Groove, though. A fun movie, though the animation lacked severely.

It is amazing to see the decline in animation by Disney. For a while we had the quality of Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King (yes, I know about all the not-so-original story), but now we have this angular, disproportionate crap that they shove at us. Add in the decline in plotlines (can you believe quality actually went down from Pocahontas?) and you have modern Disney, the McDonalds of the entertainment industry (would you like tripe with that?).

And sequels? Walt's not rolling in his grave, he's break dancing.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[frission]

I believe LILO & Stitch did pretty well, and even though it wasn't REALLY Disney, i'm glad that Spirited Away ended up doing fairly well for itself after the Oscar win...both amazing 2d movies!

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Golias]

Come to think of it, why would japanese animation be any different? millions if not billions are spent by American's for anime. You really think the consumers care where it came from? As long as the story is still good, I don't think it matters at all. That just proves the market is there, just no American companies are exploiting it.

Anime was very much a niche market until companies like ADV, Pioneer, and Bandai started releasing relatively inexpensive DVD's (at about the same time that "Adult Swim" on the cartoon network started to bring a broader audience to anime for grown-ups like Cowboy Bebop.)

You can now get the entire series of "Princess Nine" for less that $40 on line, compared to the early 90's when owning an entire run of a series would cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

The recent success of anime (go to any Best Buy and see how big the section has become!) is an indicator of an emerging market. Over the next 5 years or so, Hollywood might start to see the potential and exploit it, but if you told somebody in 1990 that "romance" cartoons like Tenchi or Boys Over Flowers would become major sellers in the United States, they never would have believed you. The only anime selling well in the 80s were dubbed kids shows on television, and porno on VHS.

(By the way: Believe the hype about Princess Nine, especially in the original Japanese w/ subtitles. American TV has never produced a sports-themed show that's even half as good.)

Re:It's an insane decision.

[nytes]

You can read an incredibly interesting piece on The Emperor's New Groove here: part one, and part two. (ignore the links within the articles to parts one and two, they're wrong).

The original idea, titled "Kingdom of the Sun", sounds incredible.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[hondo77]

The traditional side of Disney has never really succeeded in finding that balance between entertaining the kids and entertaining adults.

Somebody modded this as insightful? The Lion King grossed over $300 million. Beauty and the Beast was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar (not Best Animated Picture--Best Picture). An animated movie could not do either without striking that balance.

As for the South Park movie being "one of the biggest...hits", unless it grossed over $100 million (it didn't), it's not even in the ballpark.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[nytes]

No, it's the management that deserves to be laid off. Eisner has systematically whored the company's image in order to generate income in the short term, with complete disregard to their image in the long term.

This was the central point of Roy Disney's resignation letter, in which he called for Eisner's resignation.

It is management's decision to water down the films so that the characters work well as Happy Meal toys, or sell as plush.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[efflux]

I have to agree with you about Disney turning into a production studio, look at their most successfull titles recently (besides the Pixar ones), they have come from Studio Gibli.

Too bad I'll have to keep my old device to show Bambi to my children.

You really shouldn't count out Miyasaki's works. I don't know how familiar you are with him, but he is one of the best animators I have ever seen. His stories (he writes and directs as well), are thoughtful, evoking, allegories... and the characters are *almost* always well developed. A few titles I would suggest: Spirited Away, Castle in the Sky, Kiki's Delivery Service, Porco Rosso (my least favorite), Princess Mononoke, Nausicaa: of the Valley of the Winds (I only found this on KaZaa, it was never released in the US, it's only in a subtitled version, so maybe this one's for you). My wife and I are only planning on having children now, but we hope they will grow up on Miyazaki films. I've heard that children tend to be very attracted to the films, especially because of their use of vibrant color and excellent musical score.

Fair warning on the films: The dubbing isn't as faithful as I would like. For your enjoyment, I would suggest subtitles.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[agslashdot]

The shareholders don't want them taking risks with their money.

If you want to make money, and that's your only goal, my goodness - there's hundred million foolproof ways to do it eg. run a hedge fund, invest in practical & innovative technology, work in real estate, sell fast food burgers, be a middleman - run a brokerage & take a cut for every transaction, umpteen schemes to pry your fellow human of his wealth.

Making a film to make money is such an elaborate enterprise, like trying to reach your nose with the hand behind your back. People are capricious, tastes change, what works today doesn't work tomorrow, people fancy something for a while & then move on to something else - given all these tiresome variables, artforms like film,book,theatre must be funded by society not to increase shareholder stake but to simply promote culture. After all, art is simply a celebration of humanity. Why do we celebrate the 4th of July ? Does it increase shareholder value ? Gosh man, business isn't the only end, you got to live your life too, and that's what art is all about.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[burns210]

But the lively vibrant color and facial expressions of someone like the ellen degenerous fish character made her jokes all the more funny. The high quality, real life like reactions and detail make the movie even better than it would be without...

On the other hand, a bad story line ruines the movie, period. A good story first, but the high quality realism(for a cartoon-like character) really improves the movie, in my opinion.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[MCZapf]

I disagree. Maybe it's because they're kids movies, but I haven't been too impressed with computer animated films since Toy Story.

I found the storyline in Shrek to be quite lame. It's as if they just wrote down a bunch of stuff one afternoon to give them a reason to do the computer animation. Same thing for Monsters, Inc. Capturing screams for energy? Give me a break.

I think the computer animation aspect of these films still excites people enough that they are forgiving of these flaws. Plus, the characters, individually, are usually funny enough.

I haven't seen any 2D cartoons recently, but I imagine they are not much better or worse, story-wise.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[poopie]

The shareholders don't want them taking risks with their money. [...] The want safe, easy, money. [...] The people who own the company have no interest in it other than as a cash cow. You can't be dangerous and edgy as a public company

Name the companies that the above statements do not hold true for.

It's just like the long-term strategy vs. good quarterly report issue. Every company wants to show shareholders an ever-increasing return, and "meeting numbers" or "quarterly expectations" directly determines stock price. We'll deal with next quarter later.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Anonymous Coward]

But they looked shabby.

South Park = computer simulation of paper cut outs.

Not that there's anything wrong with that method of animation, but somehow I don't think the Disney animations flopped due to the lack of visual quality.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[danila]

The shareholders don't want them taking risks with their money.
I had better opinion about American shareholders. I thought in the country with the most developed stock market in the world people would appreciate theories like CAPM better. If you want safe returns, buy Treasure bonds, or at least invest in index funds. If you want high returns, realise that you pay with higher risks for them. And if you want high returns with low risks, you need to find a company you believe in, where managers are excellent at identifying new attractive money making opportunities. And that means let them RISK if they know their shit!

Re:It's an insane decision.

[danila]

Well, if we are to believe the decades worth of financial theory developments, the concerns of the shareholders are largely irrelevant. It has been shown that rational investors should always diversify unsystematic risk anyway and the systematic risk (how much the stock reacts to overall market fluctuations) is directly related to returns.

So what managers should do is simply invest in projects with postitive NPV. The whole American system of shareholder relations has horribly gone wrong, in my opinion.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Anonymous Coward]

... or produce characters that don't die at the end of movies just so that they can be sold as happy meal toys and the studio can produce sequels. Whenever you watch an animation and a character that should have been dead is miraculously revived at the end in some unbelievable contrived way, you know there's going to be a toy or a sequel.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Cappy Red]

None that I can find. My comment was more directed at Disney's recent creations(since The Little Mermaid). Several of the earlier films, I believe, actually were from original stories, and I think you hit on two of them.

Me and my non-specific mouth. :}


*honk*

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, 3D Anime isn't unknown...

A good deal of Cowboy Bebop's space sequences were 3D rendered...

And of course, theres' the obvious FF VII: Advent Children.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[originalTMAN]

umm... how was Tarzan (bastardized and dumbed down series by Edgar Rice Burroughs) , Hecules (bastardized and dumbed down Greek/Roman legends), or Emperor's New Groove (bastardized and disneyfied collection of a few stories and fables) original? They were pretty... I liked the acting... but they could have been better. I agree though. The only worse shame is the god damn sequels!

Re:It's an insane decision.

[originalTMAN]

Ah but then this post wasn't too original either now that I've reset my browse to 3+... Oh well, c'est la vie!

Re:It's an insane decision.

[jdifool]

Miyazaki's probably my favorite animation designer in this world crippled with Pocahontas and Lion King 3 : The Return of the Evil Snake.

I have all the DVDs, from China, here at home (home=Vietnam until the end of the year). Which one do you miss ? Try to find one : The Cat Returns, the last one that never went out outside of Japan. More childish, but with the incredible wit and spirituality that you can find in any of his animations.

Don't know if you know these, but www.pathea.com and www.nausicaa.net are both excellent websites dedicated to anims in general, and Miyazaki in particular...

But still this is no good for my future 3-4 yo children ; it has been proved by experience (most of my 8 bros and sis, basically) that Miyazaki cartoons frighten the youngest kids... :)

jdif

Re:It's an insane decision.

[efflux]

Thanks for the reference! Seems we've had a bit of a role reversal though... :-)

Re:It's an insane decision.

[uncoveror]

By Disney, do you actually mean Michael Eisner?

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's better business to animate for families rather than adult themes for the obvious reason that the audience is much larger and the usual uplifting themes draw much better. The numbers prove it, so it's not a waste of time after all.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[perly-king-69]

If you want to make money, and that's your only goal, my goodness...

Most of Disney shares are held by large, institutional investment houses. And they want it to pay.

and that's what art is all about.

And 'art' (whatever that may be) can't be guaranteed to pay. Ask Van Gogh...never sold a painting in his life.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Leroy_Brown242]

CG animation also allows you to imerse people in a world not possible by the bounds of reality. Fish can't speak english, Sharks don't go to mach AA type meetings, your toys don't run around your room while you're away, and there is not a monster world on the other side of your closet door. But the 'reality' in these worlds are so great, that you don't even notice it's fiction after a while.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[TheRevenant]

Umm, Tarzan and Hercules were original?

Surely they're just more examples demonstrating Disney's pattern of plumbing public domain art for ideas while working to extend Mickey Mouse's copyright another 50 years.

(Actually, Tarzan may not be public domain, but he's still not a Disney original - Hercules is as public domain as you can get).

Re:It's an insane decision.

[TheRevenant]

Actually, you _can_ be dangerous and edgy as a public company - you just have to offset the risks.

Much as I dislike Disney in some ways, things like Cinderella 2 enable Disney to support more dangerous and edgy flicks like Dogma.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[DeadScreenSky]

The film actually is 'made' using construction paper. Of course you could argue that EVERY film is actually made using film stock - there are obviously important transition steps where it wasn't cardboard, but it originated as such. In interviews for the film the creators talked about the nice textured look it gave the early shows, and how much they had missed it and decided to use it again for the film. The unique texture is very apparent in the film, especially because of its better-than-TV resolution.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

I'm not a capitalist so I don't have a strong opinion on the stock market. To me, it is nothing more than a capitalist game. I do not consider it as a good measure of the welfare of society. My quote was always 'One of the worst things in my life happened when the stock market started mattering more than the economy'.

On a side note, I think you are wrong with your assertion that finance theory calls for investors to diversify (to minimize risk). Yes, diversifying is the OPTIMAL solution in a portfolio. But I don't think any theory says that YOU must do it. The decision is up to the individual. Finance theory also talks about the risk-return tradeoff (it's basically a curve): the greater the risk, the greater the payoff. YOU may take a different risk position than me. This is what is happening. A lot of people (small investors at least) playing the markets these days are heavily tilted towards the risk side. They are basically taking heavy risk for a heavy (potential) payoff. I don't know why this happens (perhaps people are greedy--capitalism rewards greed) but that's how the stock markets are.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:It's an insane decision.

[danila]

On a side note, I think you are wrong with your assertion that finance theory calls for investors to diversify (to minimize risk).
Diversifying unsystematic risks (the risk that the return on a particular stock will deviate from the expected value) is a must. If you diversify, the expected return doesn't change, but the risk decreses, so everyone must do it, unless they hate money. And it doesn't take much effort, buying about 10 different stocks (with different beta) is usually enough.

You are right about risk-return, but in fact it is mostly irrelevant to manager's decisions. An investor can use a combination of any stock and riskless loan/deposit to achieve any combination of risk and return available on the market. So the managers should ignore individual preferences of the shareholders. The fact that they don't is a proof that American MBAs shirk their corporate finance lessons. ;)

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

After typing my lengthy post :( I re-read all your messages and I guess I misunderstood your point. I thought you were arguing about diversification resulting in everyone taking the same portfolio, when in fact you were arguing about diversification vs non-diversification. I agree with everything you say (if you are talking about diversification vs non-diversification (i.e. on the non-optimal part of the risk-return curve)). If that is indeed the case, which I think it is, you can ignore the top part of my message :) But you can read the botton part though.

If you diversify, the expected return doesn't change, but the risk decreses, so everyone must do it, unless they hate money. (bolded by me)

I forgot my finance stuff but I just doublechecked and I think that is not correct. The expected return can be increased by taking a higher risk. The typical risk-return graph is a parabola, and what you are talking about is the OPTIMAL position, which is ONE POINT on the graph. However, one can take other positions depending on whether they want higher returns for higher risk. Check out these two positions: one risk averse and the other more risky. (Check out the source page for more pictures near the botton).

What you are talking about is if you were on the bottom part of the curve (the green part), in which case you can diversify away risk without losing returns. Or YOU may have particular preference and you might be talking about the intersection of the CML line as shown here. BUT once you are on the optimal part of the curve (the blue part), people can take any position on that curve. I may take a position further to the right on the blue curve. It will be SUB-OPTIMAL but I will get HIGHER RETURN for HIGHER RISK.

Now, if you just cared about the OPTIMAL portfolio then one would you are saying. But doing so will just mean that you will get the market returns (i.e. the average stock market return). *I* might want a higher return. I might want a return higher than the stock market return. What if I want 20% return on the stock market (while the market return is 8%)? In these cases, one would take higher risks which will result in higher returns.

If what you say were right then everyone would take the same position. Yet you see people taking very risky positions. All because they are giving up risk for return.

(As a side note, I'm strongly risk-averse so I would actually take your position which is the optimal position. I was just using myself as an example of a risky person :) )

----

So the managers should ignore individual preferences of the shareholders.

I don't think that theory of finance is true. Compensation for management is tied to performance (i.e. returns). So, management is influenced by the stockholders. I think what people overlook is the fact that the owners feel that they PERSONALLY own the company. Therefore, they place demands on the company. So if an investor wants higher returns, or lower risks, or whatever, they demand it. The finance theory calls for these people to sell their stock and then invest in another company with higher return, or lower risk, or whatever they wanted. In practice I don't think that happens. What happens is that the stockholders push their desires onto the company (rather than pick another company with their desire).

As long as management compensation is tied to performance (which is done to align the interests to that of the shareholders), it will always be like this. After all, who decides if or when to fire the executives? The shareholders. If shareholders want less risky products

Re:It's an insane decision.

[danila]

If you diversify, the expected return doesn't change.

I still stand by it. You misunderstood me again, this time partly because I made a minor error. What you wrote next (until ----) is absolutely correct, but it still doesn't disprove my point - diversification in stock with the same risk, but in different areas (I stated it wrongly first time) doesn't change the expected return, but it reduces unsystematic risk.

As for your comments about the reality of the stock/management systems, sadly, they are true to a large extent. But the theory is true nevertheless. :) It doesn't help the company (or shareholders themselves) if shareholders start interfering in the business. If, as a result of that, managers do not invest in projects with positive NPV, everyone will eventualy lose. And who can calculate/guess the NPV better than the managers (assuming they are good, not like in Disney now)? Not shareholders, that's for sure.

Re:It's an insane decision.

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

I'm going to ignore the diversification issue. I don't really understand your point. I have a feeling that we may be arguing about the same thing...

As far as your other point is concerned, yes, management is the one that has the most knowledge about the business. But you ignore the fact that the shareholders will interfere in any case. At the minimum, they need to interfere to ensure that management acts in the interests of the owners rather than their own (i.e management's). This is why management is compensated with stock options and stuff, and is the agency cost theory under finance. At the most extreme, shareholders will get involved for ethical, moral, and political reasons. A capitalist may not want that to happen but the fact of the matter is that we are all humans. Contrary to capitalist thought, we have a heart and a mind of our own. So we will interfere. An example of the latter case is when shareholders force their companies to be environmentally friendly, or to stop supporting human rights abusers.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:It's an insane decision.

[gnalre]

:(

HOLY CRAP!

[graveyardduckx]

Does this mean no more Hakuna Matata!?!

Re:HOLY CRAP!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that'll live in our hearts for ever.... no matter how much we wish it would die.

Re:HOLY CRAP!

[ZorinLynx]

ftp://ftp.cs.fiu.edu/pub/flynnj/abigtonomoolah.mp3

'nuff said.

(Disclaimer, I really like The Lion King; it's one of my favorite movies ever. But this track is pretty accurate at describing Disney corporate. }:) )

Irony

[alset_tech]

If you can DREAM it, you can DO it.

-- Walt Disney

This is on the front page of Legacy. How ironic. Or insulting, depending how you look at it.

Re:Irony

[Nadsat]

If you can DO it, DREAM it.

--Roy Disney

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't dream it, be it.

- Dr. Frank-N-Furter

Re:Irony

[dat00ket]

"If you can DREAM it, you can DO it. -- Walt Disney

This is on the front page of Legacy. How ironic. Or insulting, depending how you look at it."

I dream in 3D.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

"I dream in 3D."

I dream in 3D with the framerate in a little box in the corner.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't drink it, he peed in it

-the audience

Re:Irony

[mojoNYC]

if you can SELL it, you can Do it...

-Michael Eisner

Save Disney site.

[AchmedHabib]

Save Disney Save Disney site for those who cares.

Re:Save Disney site.

[cgranade]

Frankly, I don't. Disney is making a big mistake, and this will most likely, while not bringing about an end to Disney, open up the market for many other animation studios such as the aforementioned Legacy Studios.
Indeed, Pixar succeeded because they knew how to make a good story, and good characters, and to use the medium. While I don't think that 3-D CG is inherently better (or worse), I do think that variety is important, and that using the appropiate medium for the appropiate story is crucial.
Toy Story, for instance, was wonderful, not just because of the lovable characters, but because the quirks of CG lend themselves to doing well at rendering plastic-y models. FF:TSW was wonderful because the CG animation let them paint a world that was at once real and surreal, and to pull off effects that would be damn near impossible otherwise (the Phantoms for instance...).

In short, it seems to me that Disney is shooting themselves in the foot by reducing the available avenues for them to express themselves through, and that this will open up for more creative studios to finally grab the market.

Re:Save Disney site.

[liquidweb]

Is there another site to save their server?

That thing is loaded nicely.

Re:Save Disney site.

[Anonymous Coward]

I too do not care one iota about Disney. Why? Two words, Michael Eisner. If Disney is 'saved', it will be for his benefit, that greedy bastard who every year siphons off hundreds of millions of dollars from Disney, money that should either be paid to its employees or its shareholders.

Re:Save Disney site.

[superyooser]

It's not worth saving.

"Baseball, hotdogs, apple pie. . .and Disney." A few years ago that statement would have rung true. No longer. For decades Disney was a name families could trust. The name Disney meant wholesomeness, laughter, quality family entertainment without pornography, violence and profanity. More than anything the name Disney meant children. Sadly, this is no longer true. Disney has gone from trusted friend to hostile foe of those who hold the same values and ideals that this - the world's most popular entertainment giant - once represented. -- AFA

The Village Voice declared Miramax/Disney's Kill Bill "The Most Violent American Movie Ever Made," and the Hollywood Reporter warned it "oozes, drips, flows, gushes, splatters... scalps, limbs and heads are freely removed from characters' bodies."

You'd think that Disney would tone it down for a Christmas movie. Sorry, no Miracle on 34th Street here. In Bad Santa, Miramax/Disney features a disgusting Santa that yells at a kid, several times: "G**-d***it! Are you f**king with me?" Another scene depicts a barmaid having sex with Santa in his car outside of the bar: "F**k me, Santa! F**k me, Santa!"

Disney-owned [television] channels account for the overwhelming number of erotic and pornographic network programs on air. -- FFA

Re:Save Disney site.

[gnalre]

Unfortunatly the one thing Legacy will not have, but disney has in buckets is a distribution network. Many films die on the vine because they cannot get shown, while Star Wars I makes it millions of cinema's

What Legacy will have to do is tie up to amajor studio, otherwise they will be stuck making 5 minutes shorts for adverts.

Re:Save Disney site.

[Iffy Bonzoolie]

The Village Voice declared Miramax/Disney's Kill Bill "The Most Violent American Movie Ever Made," and the Hollywood Reporter warned it "oozes, drips, flows, gushes, splatters... scalps, limbs and heads are freely removed from characters' bodies."

Awesome...

Can't wait for part 2!

-If

Re:Save Disney site.

[DaAdder]

While I don't think that 3-D CG is inherently better (or worse), I do think that variety is important, and that using the appropiate medium for the appropiate story is crucial.

I think you're very right. If you look at what's done with animation outside of the feature length format, 2d still reigns supreme and is looking incredible. But what's being used more is 3d effects and scenes, parts of scenes, mixed with the 2d animation.

This can be seen in a lot of the new high budget anime coming out of asia, see the recently released trailer for Ghost in the shell 2, but it can also be seen in the newer simpsons episodes, and every last futurama one to name a couple.

I've been more and more impressed with what I've been seeing, especially from the asian creators, and I think that if this was done well in more movies, as the incredible Mononoke-hime, we could very well have instant, and long-lasting, success on our hands :)

Re:Save Disney site.

[rbowen]

I don't care. Why should I? We have a free market economy for a reason. Disney, for all of our fuzzy feelings about it, is a business, and they are free to make decisions, good or bad. Whether they are good or bad will be decided by the market, not by protests.

Anyway, with any luck, these folks will find jobs with companies that are able to make better movies than they were before, with stories that are actually interesting, rather than being vehicles for the Disney Corporation's particular brand of political correctness. So in that respect, this seems like a good move for us, the consumers.

Re:Save Disney site.

[jafuser]

The last bastion of creativity within the corporation has fallen.

The Disney company is now just an entertainment broker.

It's time to rest in peace.

Re:Save Disney site.

[SuiteSisterMary]

That's the entire point behind Miramax; it's Disney owned, but it's not the Disney name.

Pirates of the Carribean is the first Disney movie to have higher than a PG rating; it's PG-13.

Re:Save Disney site.

[Fnkmaster]

You are a complete idiot. Those movies are produced under the "Miramax" brand because they are _FOR ADULTS_. Bad Santa is so obviously not a kid's movie, and will so obviously be offensive to people who are uptight about their Santa mythology, that I can't help but think you must be a complete moron if you went to see it and were offended. I figured that out and I never even saw the movie.

Disney is two beasts - it's an entertainment _COMPANY_ and a children's entertainment _BRAND_. You are conflating the two. You can be pretty sure that only a true religious nutcase will be offended by a Disney movie. Other entertainment made by other divisions of the company may or may not offend you. I fail to see why you have to enjoy and approve of every movie made by a company to watch some of their movies and enjoy them.

Re:Save Disney site.

[SubtleNuance]

save disney? are you joking?

They re-tell stolen stories. They create little original work, for instance; nemo; atlantis) not to mention it robes timeless popular tales then defends them as disney's own creation. They use child labour to make garbage for hyper-consumers in the west (for instance, from a little googling: "A Haitian worker earns only 7 cents for every pair of Disney Pocahontas pajamas she sews, which sells at Wal-Mart for $11.97. These wages amount to one-half of one percent of the sale price of these pajamas.")

disney also plans on undermining poor sustanance fishermen in HongKong, dredging up toxic material in order to build a themepark.

Fuck Disney their immoral greedmongers -- They'll never get a single dime from me.

Re:Save Disney site.

[Quikah]

Unfortunately with the year that Disney has had (#1 grossing studio) there is NO WAY you are going to convince the board that they are doing anything wrong.

Re:Save Disney site.

[AchmedHabib]

I said,,, for those who care.
I do not.

"Disney" != The Walt Disney Company

[LostCluster]

If Walt Disney were alive today, he likely wouldn't recognize the company that has his name. Roy Disney certainly doesn't think so...

The Disney of today is not a pure family-friendly company by any means. The "Disney brand name" is reserved for G-rated projects only, but companies such as Touchstone Entertainment and Miramax Pictures exist under the Disney company's ownership to publish PG to R-rated fare. Everything that goes out over The Disney Channel is family friendly, but you can't say the same about ABC.

And from that view of the world, it's easy to see why 2D animation is out the door. It's not a money-maker today.

The original Disney works are living on borrowed time right now. Mickey Mouse quietly celebrated his 75th birthday this year. Why didn't the Disney theme parks hold a big celebration for that event like they do for every other excuse to hold a big celebration? Because 75 years old used to be the retirement age for copyrights, until the Sonny Bono Copyright Extention Act made it 95 years. The company knows that they're not going to be able to get extentions forever, so they've already started to diversify while they still can...

Re:"Disney" != The Walt Disney Company

[krymsin01]

Twenty more years, and they'll let him out of the water tower!

Re:"Disney" != The Walt Disney Company

[LostCluster]

Twenty more years, and they'll let him out of the water tower!

Nah, that's the Warner Brothers, Yakko and Wakko, and of course the Warner Sister, Dot. They escaped the water tower in the mid-90s.

Re:"Disney" != The Walt Disney Company

[octal666]

I'm not familiar with copyright laws, and less with USA copyright laws since I live in Europe, but seeing Mickey free of copyright will be a major shock for everyone. Then we will see if it's really a piece of 20th century culture or just will fall when makes no profit for Disney.

Re:"Disney" != The Walt Disney Company

[1u3hr]

Because 75 years old used to be the retirement age for copyrights, until the Sonny Bono Copyright Extention Act made it 95 years. The company knows that they're not going to be able to get extentions forever, so they've already started to diversify while they still can...

Even if the 1920s Mickey Mouse cartoons went into public domain, the later ones don't (until they're 95 years old at least). Regardless of copyright, more importantly, the "Mickey Mouse" trademark will never expire. No one can ever make unlicensed Mickey Mouse paraphernalia without Disney's lawyers beating them not a pulp.

Re:"Disney" != The Walt Disney Company

[divide overflow]

>Because 75 years old used to be the retirement age for copyrights, until the Sonny Bono Copyright Extention Act made it 95 years. The company knows that they're not going to be able to get extentions forever, so they've already started to diversify while they still can...

Well, after seeing the copyright period extended time after time as I have, I have no faith that it won't continue to be extended, indefinitely. The copyright holders have paid politicians enormous sums to keep their intellectual fiefdoms. And recent court rulings indicate that there are no current legal limitations to prevent future extensions. If additional legislation isn't put in place to limit further extensions I would posit that they may well continue ad infinitum.

Re:"Disney" != The Walt Disney Company

[Anonymous Coward]

but seeing Mickey free of copyright will be a major shock for everyone.

"Mickey the Mouse" would not be free of copyright (or actually trademark), just the very earliest cartoons.

Re:"Disney" != The Walt Disney Company

[The Evil Couch]

"So much fun it should be illegal. Like copyright infringement. Ho ho. See you at the game, Joe." Peter Griffin "The Family Guy"

Re:"Disney" != The Walt Disney Company

[Anonymous Coward]

When you say that they have payed politicians huge sums, I would like to believe you, but can you show me proof that this is actually the case? Usually people point to opensecrets.org, and that's it. And on the website it lists a couple thousand here, and a couple thousand there, but nothing overly substantial. I'm curious whether you can do better.

Re:"Disney" != The Walt Disney Company

[chthon]

In Italian Mickey Mouse is Topolino, which I think can not be trademarked, because it means literally mouse.

Re:"Disney" != The Walt Disney Company

[1u3hr]

In Italian Mickey Mouse is Topolino, which I think can not be trademarked, because it means literally mouse.

A trademark is not just a word. In this case, I'm sure there are hundreds of illustrations of said rodent documented and registered.

Re:"Disney" != The Walt Disney Company

[cubicledrone]

And from that view of the world, it's easy to see why 2D animation is out the door. It's not a money-maker today.

Been to a Suncoast lately? Best Buy? Anime made almost four billion dollars last year. Is that enough money?

Re:"Disney" != The Walt Disney Company

[Anonymous Coward]

That's Princess Angelina Contessa Maria Francesca Banana Fanna Fofesca III...but you can call her Dot. :)

Re:"Disney" != The Walt Disney Company

[SpaceCadetTrav]

Ah.... another thread where the armchair media moguls come out of the woodwork. It seems as though everyone is smarter than Eisner, yet he became successful while you post to Slashdot.

Re:"Disney" != The Walt Disney Company

[Anonymous Coward]

And from that view of the world, it's easy to see why 2D animation is out the door.

Tell that to Matt Groening. Or the makers of Sponge-Bob Squarepants. Or the Rugrats people.

2D animation is just a style -- it's the story and the dialogue that counts the most.

The original Disney works are living on borrowed time right now.

Yep, I agree. I've been a fan of Disney all my life. I think it's time for Michael Eisner to go. His outrageous compensation to Ovitz and the delusional acquisition of ABC have diluted Disney's focus, and have no doubt allowed the promotion of talentless executives into making bonehead decisions about which movie stories to give the go ahead and influenced politically-correct casting.

No doubt Eisner has historically made big and meaningful contributions to the company, but his time has come.

Is it just me...

[Anonymous Coward]

...or is Legacy's server on the edge of being slashdotted at 2:11am in the morning?

Re:Is it just me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's going to go down quicker than a choir boy.

Re:Is it just me...

[AndreyF]

5:03am
it's down.

Re:Is it just me...

[Anonymous Coward]

pssst!

When it was 2:11am in the morning [sic] there, it was daytime in other parts of the world*!

* Yes, they do exist.

adios 2D

[phuller10]

It's kind of sad. I love watching The disney version of the Jungle Book because the backgrounds are so detailed and lush. There is a certain warmth to 2d animation, at least I think there. Who knows though, maybe I'm just being a technophobic jackass. I say the samething about records as opposed to digital media. There is a certain je ne sais quoi to it, know what I mean?

Re:adios 2D

[apoch2001]

I could see a potential 2D revival when people get tired of the 3D thing and want something different (or nostalgic). For the time being, it's the right direction... but those 2D animators will be in serious demand one day. They brought back bell-bottoms, ergo they can bring back anything.

Re:adios 2D

[phuller10]

Yeah, they'll come back. It's just more luxuriant and lush looking than 3D. It's metal/wood versus plastic. Plastic is the way to go, more flexible and in many ways better suited for most things but sometimes it's ncie to uses something archaic just to appreciate the craftmanship that went into it... or for the gimmick. Who knows, maybe Disney will make another 2D feature just for old times sake. They could market it to Jungle Book lovers like me.

Re:adios 2D

[Anonymous Coward]

2D artwork draws on a cultural tradition of representational art that stretches back 600 years. (longer if you count art that doesn't involve perspective.) 3D rendering is what, 10 years old? Naturally 2D has learned some things about composition, color use, etc. that 3D hasn't had time to yet.

Re:adios 2D

[nytes]

I believe that the backgrounds you speak of have that feel because of the watercolor techniques used.

You might want to take a glace at "Lilo and Stitch". This movie is supposed to be the last one that will ever have those backgrounds. (At least, the last one from Disney.)

(Supposedly there is a collectors edition due out soon. I'm waiting for that one.)

Re:adios 2D

[phuller10]

You know what? You're exactly right. I did notice that in Lilo and Stitch and loved it, it wasn't exactly the same but almost as pretty. I guess what I like is more stylistic then method. Thanks for pointing that out.

Maybe it's for the good

[octal666]

When I heard about this first time I thought that Disney has probably the best 2D animators working for them, wich is a pitty, since their stories suck so much. But if all thouse people are fired and start working on their own, maybe they choose to animate good stories and we can see something more than boring musicals with no plot. The ones to lose more about that can be Pixar if they are forced to animate that crap.

Re:Maybe it's for the good

[HillBilly]

Problem with disney stories is that they are so predictible, take a fairy tale, myth or a part of history, add a love story, give a normally inanimate object a face and voice(probably played by some hack of a comedian), everyone lives happily ever after and there you have it a disney movie.

Re:Maybe it's for the good

[octal666]

Well, it's sad but almost all Hollywood films can be summarize like this. I mean, we see less and less originality and creativity in films because it's more business than art and it's risky to try something new.

We have moved onto 3D these days....

[Anonymous Coward]

That third dimension is sooo funky.

Re:We have moved onto 3D these days....

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone see the movie TRON?

Pixar

[phorm]

And once pixar's contracts with disney expire... does disney think that they are readying to replace the gap currently filled by pixar? What happens when they invest in 3d only to find that their movies still suck - not to lack of flashy graphics - but comparatively lower talent.

Will they try to hire their animators back?

Re:Pixar

[jcr]

Will they try to hire their animators back?

Prediction: after both a shareholder and employee revolt, Eiser will finally "retire", and his successor will buy Legacy Animation, merge with Pixar, and negotiate for a worldwide distribution deal with Studio Gibli.

If I were a Disney shareholder, I'd be praying for this to happen within the next five years. Since I'm not a Disney shareholder, I'll just go to see Pixar and Ghibli movies whoever distributes them.

Re:Pixar

[NuShrike]

Disney already has a worldwide distribution deal with Studio Ghibli which consists a lot of sitting on the material instead of releasing it.

The fact that Spirited Away got an Oscar blind-sided them shows how much they want to push other people's better 2D animation works.

Re:Pixar

[Jason1729]

I don't see why pixar's contract with disney has to expire. As long as Disney is satisfied that their getting good value out of pixar, they can afford to negotiate new contracts. If pixar doesn't want to, Disney easily has the deep pockets to buy them out.

Re:Pixar

[jcr]

what an idiot you are.

If you'd like to take exception to anything I've posted, I'd take you much more seriously if you weren't doing so as an AC.

Firing their 2D animators, blah blah blah... is a wonderful business decision.

I beg to differ, and the recent performance of Disney's in-house productions would tend to support my position.

What's eventually going to get Eisner retired is the rather poor performance he's shown, which among other things includes the company's inability to come up with another "Lion King".

Prediction: Your head is going to implode from the vacuum in there. It sure as hell is empty.

Is that you, "Justin"? ;-)

-jcr

Re:Pixar

[jcr]

Hmm.. I knew they had US distribution for Ghibli, I didn't realize it was a worldwide deal.

-jcr

Re:Pixar

[tuffy]

Disney already has a worldwide distribution deal with Studio Ghibli which consists a lot of sitting on the material instead of releasing it.

Disney is already distributing virtually every Ghibli movie ever made in Japan. Porco Rosso, Nausicaa and Ocean Waves(?) have already been dubbed and are due for an R1 release in 2004. Totoro might also be pending, since Fox lost the rights at the end of 2003.

Re:Pixar

[nelsonal]

The contract expired because Pixar gave Disney a sweet deal on their first five or six films to get exposure. Now that they have established a solid name for themselves, they want a better cut. Since Pixar is now widely viewed as a can't go wrong hitmaker, they can pretty much name their terms to a distributor on the next contract, and Disney must accept them. Because TimeWarner, Vivendi/Universal, or any other distributor will be happy to get a little cut and branding out of the deal.
In order to buy the current owners have to want to sell. Notice the % held by insiders is well above 50%. The company is largely owned by Steve Jobs (54%) It's not availible at Yahoo, check a recent proxy (at the SEC). Poor Steve, he needs Apple to keep paying for that expensive V. Just because a company is public doesn't mean that it is majority owned by outsiders, however most are. Disney can not buy the company without Steve wanting to sell it. They could make such a sweet offer that the remaining shareholders sue Steve to compel him to take the offer (or pay significant damages).

Re:Pixar

[Quikah]

Considering that disney was #1 in film gross last year, Eisner must have been doing something right. their animation division is kind of bombing but the live action film divisions are making crap loads of money.

Re:Pixar

[einTier]

Because Steve Jobs and Pixar hate Disney right now. Disney screwed Pixar by insinuating one thing and then holding their feet to the fire on their contract. Basically, the Pixar deal reads that they will deliver so many feature movies (meaning, shown at the theatre) to Disney to satisfy the contract, and sequels (which are supposed to be direct to video and lower quality) don't count toward that total.

When they were starting to make Toy Story 2, Pixar went to Disney and said, basically, "We think this has the potential to be a real blockbuster of a feature release, we'd like to do it as a feature movie." Roy Eisner said "fine" and this is where the problems started. Pixar took the extra time and effort to make Toy Story 2 a feature film, assuming from their talks with Eisner that it would count towards the total movies needed to complete the contract. After all, it was a feature film, it was going to be shown in theatres, and would likely gross as much, if not more than a non-sequel, and would be less risk. Basically, a win for everybody. When the film was released, Jobs talked with Eisner about upcoming movies, and that's when he learned that Eisner was going to classify Toy Story 2 as a sequel, and thus, it didn't count. Which means that Eisner suckered Pixar into making an extra feature film for free.

Which is all well and good, but generated a sizable animosity at Pixar. Now that Pixar is solid gold, Eisner is between a rock and a hard place. Disney can't afford to let Pixar go, but at the same time, to get them to stay, they'll have to bend over and take it. This is just one of many poor decisions made by Eisner during his tenure, and is very indicative of his "chase the good money now" attitude.

Re:Pixar

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Then how come Spirited Away got ZERO ad before getting Oscar, then it still get ZERO Spirited Away games? For all intension, Disney just wants to hog the stuff, knowing it can't do better marketing with Miyazaki works.

Re:Pixar

[tolldog]

That will never happen.

Disney will never get control of Pixar, the old Disney animators would probably never go back if they have any success at all...

I see Apple and Pixar being much more likely than Disney and Pixar.

I think at this point Disney is only slowing Pixar down.

-Tim

That makes sense.

[Krapangor]

With 3D displays coming why should they produce 2D animation which doesn't use the full oppotunities of modern technology ?

Re:That makes sense.

[BaseLine83]

Why was Schindler's List in black and white? It's the medium that carries the story, not the other way around.

Re:That makes sense.

[Krapangor]

But you must admit that Schindler's List would be more interesting if it was 3D.

Re:That makes sense.

[krymsin01]

Yeah, it would have been even more interesting with some singing vegtables.

To make it even funnier.....

[Dark Nexus]

They close down their 2D studios, and it looks like they won't be renewing their deal with Pixar. They're closing the studios down because "it isn't profitable", as I recall.

And what's Pixar doing? Possibly opening a 2D animation studio.

I think it's the Disney studios that aren't profitable anymore, since most of the good animated movies out of Disney in the past 5 years or so were from Pixar...

Re:To make it even funnier.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Or from Japan. Don't forget Disney's decision to "graciously" release Hayao Miyazaki's masterpieces (e.g. "Spirited Away", "Princess Mononoke") in the US.

Re:To make it even funnier.....

[OldeTimeGeek]

Yes, it would have done ever so much better if it had been released directly from Studio Ghibli. That's a well known name here in the US...

Same issues the game industry had

[Drakino]

It amazes me that animation is repeating the same mistakes computer games did. I remember when the big buzz word in games was 3D, and somehow this magicially made a better game. With the advancement of 3D, we saw the loss of such awesome games like old Lucasarts adventure games. They switched to 3D, and have never felt the same since. And the move to 3D killed Warcraft Adventures, since they saw a preview of Grim Fandango and decided a 2D animated adventure game wouldn't make it.

And even outside the adventure genre, the bad effects of 3D can be seen. Who here actually liked Mario 64 over say Super Mario World? Sonic Adventure is another good example. It went from avazing speed along a 2D course, to a game that had very little speed areas. Why? Well, 3D speed areas take a lot longer to make, and for little return since the character will be zooming through there at insane speeds.

3D has done wonders for computer games as well, but some of the most interesting games today are still very 2D, or trying to immitate it anyhow. Notice the big trend to do cell shading for example. Also look at Viewtiful Joe, one of the most creative games out recently, and it's a 2D game (well, 3D and shaded, but 2D playing field).

Hand drawn 2D animation still has a huge place out there. I remember the animated films for their content and look, and unfortunatly you loose a bit of that personal touch you feel from 2D films. And not only does this impact movies, but also their TV shows it seems. Gargoyles was an awesome show, and was a shame to see it stopped.

Re:Same issues the game industry had

[while(true)]

"Who here actually liked Mario 64 over say Super Mario World?"

I do see your point about 3D hysteria a few years back, but I would say that Mario 64 is an extremely bad example as many people in the game industry rate Mario 64 as one of the top games of all time.

Re:Same issues the game industry had

[mccalli]

3D has done wonders for computer games as well, but some of the most interesting games today are still very 2D, or trying to immitate it anyhow.

I'm a fan of 2D games as well, and I recommend that anyone with a similar opinion gets themselves a Gameboy Advance, and possibly a Cube with a Gameboy Advance Player.

The Advance is essentially a miniature SNES, but with the advantage over a second-hand SNES of new titles still appearing for it (and portability, of course). It doesn't really handle 3D all that well, so most stuff is 2D. Very playable.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Same issues the game industry had

[KingJoshi]

Who here actually liked Mario 64 over say Super Mario World?

I know I'm not alone when I say that Mario 64 is one of the most innovative and fun games made. Seeing it for the first time was breathtaking. AND it was a lot more fun than Super Mario World. Obviously, taste in games (and most things) are subjective. But you picked a bad example here, IMO.

But you're right. It's not whether it's 2D or 3D game that's important. It's a lot of other factors (gameplay, interface, story, etc). And for the movies, story is the key and it hasn't been up to snuff recently.

Re:Same issues the game industry had

[iainl]

"Who here actually liked Mario 64 over say Super Mario World?"

Err, that'll be me, Bob.

Its an unfortunate one to call, though, since the mention of Sonic (which you did, admittedly do), Pac Man, Defender, Battlezone, Centipede, Worms, GTA and Sensible Soccer all get very definite agreement on the "turning something 2D into 3D can break it" point.

Re:Same issues the game industry had

[Cebu]

How exactly is this the same "mistake" as the computer game industry? Disney is cutting it's traditional animation division not for any technical reason, nor as some artistic statement on whether 2D animation is better than 3D annimation.

The traditional animation division of Disney has been a financial failure for Disney for several years now. "Road to El Dorado" cost $95 million dollars and has recouped only $50 million dollars. "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" cost Disney over $100 million dollars and ended up with a total box office of $83.5 million dollars at box over the course of 20 weeks. Even adding rentals, which totalled less than $11 million dollars, "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" was entirely a financial failure. What else has the divison produced recently? Treasure Planet in 2002 for a friendly cost of $140 million dollars and has received $38 million at box office and around $4 million from rentals. Would you fund a division that has lost $150 million dollars over the past 3 years on features alone?

Incredible amounts of market research modified scripts have essentially killed North America's last traditional cell animation studio. Disney's cell animation scripts lack direction, coherence, and even an audience (they try to pander to all ages and end up appealing to none).

To reinterate, the fact that the division used traditional cell animation had nothing to do with why the division is being closed. That being said, cell animation in North America has essentially died for now -- Disney was the last major cell animation house on the continent, and yes, that is somewhat sad.

Re:Same issues the game industry had

[garfangle]

"Road to El Dorado" was a Dreamworks pic.

Re:Same issues the game industry had

[bludstone]

you forgot lilo and stitch. How convenient. Considering it was a runaway success.

Re:Same issues the game industry had

[Anonymous Coward]

Who here "actually liked" Super Mario 64? That's one of the best games ever. I agree that 3D doesnt make a game good, but it doesnt make a game bad either.

Re:Same issues the game industry had

[Cebu]

By that time Disney had already decided to cut traditional animation. If I remember correctly, "Lilo and Stitch" had Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders heading the project which were originally not from the Florida office of Disney -- they were brought on specifically for "Lilo and Stitch".

On another note, it was a nice movie and did quite well in profits -- I wouldn't really call it a "runaway success". It cost a bit under $90 million to make while pulling in $145 million at the box office over the course of 23 weeks. That's hardly a "Lion King" for "Finding Nemo" here -- $328 million and $340 million respectively.

Re:Same issues the game industry had

[Anonymous Coward]

No-one doubts that arbitrary constraints can be helpful. e.g. Full freedom of motion in 3D a la Descent is often too confusing for the player...

However technical limitations don't help anyone. Would a game as simple as "Chu Chu Rocket" be any better if, in fact, the world was 2D instead of 3D? No. The use of 3D doesn't have to affect game play, itn "Chu Chu Rocket" it just made design easier and adds a cute effect when you zoom out (because in 3D it can actually move the camera)

When you start categorising cell-shaded games as being or wanting to "imitate" 2D I reach for my troll-o-meter. Do black-and-white cut scenes harken back longingly to pre-color consoles? If an analog stick is assigned a single digital function, should we take that as a hint that 4 directional pads were better all along? Cell shading is just a visual style, no different from giving all characters over-sized heads, or from the exagerated "photoreal" look that was a experimented with in a few games.

Re:Same issues the game industry had

[proj_2501]

The Road To El Dorado was done by Dreamworks.

Re:Same issues the game industry had

[Cebu]

Oops, sorry -- I remembered there were three failures, but you're right, "Road To El Dorado" wasn't one of them: it was "The Emperor's New Groove" at box with $87 million over 15 weeks, and a cost of around $100 million dollars.

Re:Same issues the game industry had

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, it's about the money. However, I wouldn't mourn the loss of 2D just yet. Ever watch the credits for one of their animated shows on the Disney Channel (Proud Family, Kim Possible*, etc.)? It looks to me like they outsource the animation to Korea. I wouldn't be surprised if they start doing this with films to save money.

*Kim Possible is an awesome show. Great Writing. Apparently some people at Disney still know how entertain.

Re:Same issues the game industry had

[SpriteGF]

Despite losing money, Disney keeps on flooding the market with poorly-animated sequels and sequels-of-sequels with such fare as:

• Lion King 2
• Lion King 1-1/2
• Stitch (a sequel to Lilo and Stitch, and a "pilot" for the new TV series)
• Atlantis: Milo's Return

So when you mentioned that Atlantis was a "financial failure", it made me wonder, why would they bother producing a sequel? I've heard elsewhere that their DVD market is pretty profitable, but eventually they will saturate the market with low-quality Disney shows. Are they simply running out of bankable "assets," as Eisner calls them in stockholder meetings?

Re:Same issues the game industry had

[MesnerTrks]

"How exactly is this the same "mistake" as the computer game industry? Disney is cutting it's traditional animation division not for any technical reason, nor as some artistic statement on whether 2D animation is better than 3D annimation." I thought the reason they are giving for shutting it down was that people don't want to watch 2D animation anymore(or some shit like that). The fact that thier stories have sucked and IIRC that is due to suits trying to all get thier 2 cents in had nothing to do with it I'm sure. Btw, one moive you left off your list was Lilo and Stitch(which I read stayed under the radar at the studio and was also good) which acording to Box Office Mojo cost 80 million(with another 40 million spent on marketing) made 145 million. Also Road to El Dorado was made by dreamworks, not Disney. Patrick

Re:Same issues the game industry had

[Oopsz]

SNES Games without X and Y buttons?

Why, god?

Re:Same issues the game industry had

[zgwortz962]

As others have pointed out, El Dorado was a Dreamworks issue.

Another point, the Disney Florida studio (the one being closed) produced three films: Mulan, Lilo and Stitch, and Brother Bear. Each was a success in the theatre. And in fact, counting the international market and DVD sales, it appears that every Disney animated film (with perhaps the exception being Treasure Planet - a true disaster...) has made at least some profit, even if not a hit.

The real reason Disney has killed their Feature Animation (domestic) division is because their Television Animation division (which makes TV cartoons and direct to video sequels on the cheap by outsourcing the animation to other studios overseas) has shown it can make a higher percentage of profit on a film than they have been able to do recently from Feature Animation. (Of course, it doesn't help any that they've glutted the market with such products -- it used to be that each new Disney film was a big event.) (It also doesn't help any that Disney's average Feature Animation production costs have more than tripled in the last 10 years, way more than they should have done...)

Add that to the inane perception that 3D makes more money than 2D (thanks to recent hits such as Shrek and Ice Age and all of the Pixar films), and Disney management has decided to focus their efforts there.

IMHO, a truly stupid decision -- focusing on short term profits at the cost of savaging their future. It doesn't even make sense financially -- they merged everything into Burbank where it costs significantly more, instead of closing down Burbank and merging everyone into the Florida studio.

But hey, Disney management has been getting increasingly stupid lately -- they've lost any sort of real focus and foresight.

Re:Same issues the game industry had

[brucmack]

I think Mario 64 is a poor choice for the point you are trying to make here... I feel that Nintendo did a great job with their move to 3D. Same goes for Zelda. It certainly didn't make any of the games less fun, while opening up more possibilities.

Re:Same issues the game industry had

[DeadScreenSky]

Also missing the quality level of sound that the SNES could put out. And it has a lower resolution, too. Nintendo are cheap bastards.

Legacy Animation on Legacy Server

[liquidweb]

Apparently they believe in legacy hardware as well. That is one slow server.

Re:Legacy Animation on Legacy Server

[Aidtopia]

It's not the server. They're hand drawing images for each visitor.

3D isn't better than 2D

[aliquis]

Stupid, noone cares if it's 2D or 3D, it's the story which is important, I've liked quite a few animations from both camps lately. With Toy story 3D was cool because it was new, that isn't the case any longer, and sure shrek looks nice, but I have no troubles whatsoever with Mulan either for example.

3D doesn't have to be better than 2D, just look at the game industry, the only good 3D game I can figure out is Quake and maybe WarCraft3 but that's not any 3D i count, it works like 2D. The rest of the games are blown away by old Amiga titles.

Re:3D isn't better than 2D

[Anonymous Coward]

2D animation is far from dead. I watched Spirited Away last weekend and was blown away.

Something that fantastic comes from the imagination not the renderer.

Re:3D isn't better than 2D

[Anonymous Coward]

> the only good 3D game I can figure out is Quake and maybe WarCraft3

Heard of Half-Life?

Blame Y2K

[macgyvr64]

Top Ten Ways Y2K Affected Disney World

10. Accidental switch back to 19,000 Leagues Under the Sea.
9. Messed up computers report EuroDisney turning a profit.
8. Air traffic control glitch causes Dumbo to smack into a DC-10.
7. The "It's a Small World After All" creatures go on a rampage.
6. The Hall of Presidents keeps chanting "Kill Clinton, kill Clinton."
5. When you wish upon a star, nothing happens.
4. Unexpected power surge brings an angry Walt Disney back to life.
3. "Main Street Electrical Parade" becomes "Main Street Two Guys With Plastic Flashlights Parade."
2. Ticket machine accidentally dispenses day passes for less than $600.
1. Two words: catapulting teacups.

Re:Blame Y2K

[wibs]

When I think of the effort you took to save this over the past half decade, it makes me wish you had done something more worthwhile with your time. Hell, even masturbation would have done the world a greater service than topical humor that wasn't funny when it was fresh.

Re:Blame Y2K

[macgyvr64]

You probably spent more time typing that than I did finding it in an old junk forwarded email.

Correct me if I'm wrong

[rsilvergun]

but this doesn't mean Disney's switching to polygons for everything, just that they're phasing out old techniques for doing animation. There will still be 2D animation, it'll just be done on a computer. I'll agree you lose some warmth when you go the all computer route (at least with current technology, see Saber Marionette J). On the other hand, with computers you can do animation that would normally be outside budget constraits (again, see Saber Marionette J).

Not that I'm not taking a cynical outlook to the whole thing. Once you get over the novelty of polygonal animation it just looks awful. Animators aren't really taking advantage the new tools (at least not in a way that's apparent to a non-animator). I want to see more intricate, detailed animation of a sort that wasn't possible before. Right now it seems like computers are being used mainly to cut costs and boost profits.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know..."Spirit" seemed to be a good animation, of course, it came from Dreamworks.

Anthropomorphic animals...that don't talk. Quite refreshing, actually.

Also, Disney is extremely addicted to musicals for their animation titles. ("Atlantis" wasn't a musical, nor was "Treasure Planet"), but most of their stuff is.

I think Disney's problem is Michael Eisner. Somehow that guy seems even stiffer than Al Gore.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong

[DynamiteNeon]

You are absolutely right.

This isn't about 2D vs. 3D. This is about traditional hand drawn animation vs. modern techniques using computers.

There's technically nothing you can do with hand drawn animation that you can't do on a computer, it's just a different workflow that cuts out some of the cost. Traditional animation requires an army of animators doing key frames, in-betweening, and background art, but some of that is cut out on a computer if it can do some of the work for you. That's why there's still going to be animators in Burbank.

While I'm certainly sad that a bunch of great animators are losing their jobs, and I still don't really like the corporation, let's at least be clear that this is about Disney trying to cut costs. It does not necessarily mean that every animation they make from now on is going to look like Pixar stuff.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong

[Chuu]

While it is true 3D done wrong can look horribly artifical, this is not necessarly the case. Spirited Away was done completly in SoftImage with hand drawn textures. Some more info here :

http://www.softimage.com/community/xsi/mag/cs/vo lu me_2/issue_1/ghibli.htm

that's dumb...

[mantera]

They just don't know what to do with 2D... considering how much of cool art has gone 2D recently, just consider viewtiful joe on the nintendo gamecube and many other examples...

It's a shame

[madssj]

What a shame that disney is moveing away from 2d animation, no 3d animation can ever be compared to the life like strokes and personality there lies in such a piece of work.

Not saying that Shrek or Finding Nimo could have been done better using 2d animation, but can anyone picture donnald in 3d. Its just not the same.

Re:It's a shame

[whittrash]

I think many people have forgotten what Disney used to be like. Perhaps I am dating myself, but back 'in the day' when I was a kid I used to love watching Disney specials on TV. A couple of times a year a special would come on and we could see something like Peter Pan. There was a clip of old Walt chatting it up with Donald or Mickey and then they would show the movie. You got the impression that the characters were actually 'alive', and that you actually knew Walt and the Disney characters like they were distant cousins in your family. You were completely comfortable when enveloped in a Disney story. Disneyland was the holy grail of imagination and the most fantastic place imaginable.

That feeling is completely lost now. Disney has become a mechanical operation, with a cyborg/viper (Eisner) replacing the affable Walt as the figurehead at Disney. I can't imagine Eisner loves kids, the only thing he loves is money and himself. He is a supreme bastard.

They stopped building on their main characters (when was the last time a new Mickey Mouse sketch came along). Disney is now a massive entertainment conglomorate, where the directors and animators seem to churn out mere product for consumption. Disney today is known more for its ruthlessness and mean spirited competition than its product.

With the Old Disney I trusted the story to open up a delightful world for me to experience. With the new Disney I get the feeling I am on an overpriced theme park ride, where I get on and ride over a boring and rehashed route and at the end am left wondering why I wasted my time and money. I don't care if they do 2D or 3D. The problem is a lack of vision, a destruction of brand identity and a dispassionate and calculating artistic style devoid of any substantial emotion or feeling.

I like the old Disney. But I would never support the new Disney. I go out of my way to stay away from their 'product'.

Re:It's a shame

[dancingmad]

but can anyone picture donnald in 3d. Its just not the same.

Yes, I can and it is the same.

Loss of Lucasarts?

[arevos]

With the advancement of 3D, we saw the loss of such awesome games like old Lucasarts adventure games. They switched to 3D, and have never felt the same since.

I don't know about you, but coming from a fan of Lucasarts adventure games, Grim Fandango was one of their best works. Going 3D certainly didn't affect the quality of their games.

I get your point, but 3D isn't the work of the devil, either. There are some damn good games and movies that use computer graphics.

Slashdot effect

[breon.halling]

Uh-oh! Looks the Slashdot effect has shut down another animation studio. =)

-6 troll :)

[mrshowtime]

I got to talk to Don Bluth, the saviour of classical animation, (if it were not for him classical animation would have died a long time ago) at Comic-Con two years ago. He was one of the nicest persons I have ever met. He drew me Dirk the Daring from Dragon's Lair in about 5 seconds, perfect. He told me that Roy Disney came to his studios in Ireland (at the time) and essentially told him "Join us, or Die." So enough of the B.S. that Roy Disney is trying to save classical animation. He is just pist that they forced him to retire. The worst part about the termination of the Florida animation unit, is that they actually churned out two hits in their short lifespan. So it's b.s. that Disney needed to shut em' down to save money. Classical Animation is not dead, it just has had a few set backs in the past few years. It will return. I wish Disney would use Miramax and make an adult animated film.

2.5D

[Dogtanian]

I tend to agree that the 2D-->Bomb, 3D-->Success thinking is grossly oversimplistic, if there is truth in it at all (probably a small amount).

Have you ever seen the Animatrix *cough*... okay, not a great example, but the way in which the superficially '2D' animation "Beyond" added convincing depth to the street scenes was *obviously* done by a computer with 3D capabilities. Ditto the way the backgrounds got thrown out of focus- but it still *looked* like a 2D animation.

The 2D vs 3D argument will become obselete soon, if it isn't already. Many 2D animations include 3D CGI now, without becoming 'computer-generated 3D animations'. Even ten years ago, Disney were using CGI in Aladdin.

Re:2.5D

[cubicledrone]

I tend to agree that the 2D-->Bomb, 3D-->Success thinking is grossly oversimplistic

and that qualifies it as a "management trend" meaning the five foot wide asses will immediately sign off on it so they can all go out for salad shakers and celebrate.

so are they

[andih8u]

Are they going into total 3D ala Pixar, or are they just moving all of their animation over to digital? I recall reading that they were going to be phasing out hand-drawn stuff and going over to pure digital animation, but in a lot of cases (ie the Simpsons) this isn't a bad thing. I had thought that is was Pixar who was pushing Disney to go all digital.

All things being said and done, the move over to digital animation shouldn't be a bad thing.

Re:so are they

[kidgenius]

This is what I believe would be happening. Using cell-shading, you now can make 3d stuff appear in 2d. To do away with handrawn animation is not necessarily bad. If you have seen Lion King, the scene w/ all of the water buffalo stampeding, the buffalo were actually all drawn by computer. To produce cels and hand drawn animations gets very expensive. Especially considering that you now have to preserve those. So I would agree that they are moving from handrawn images over to computer drawn images, though it is still all 2d images in the end.

Are you fucking kidding me?

[mrshowtime]

Mario 64 has to be one of the coolest, innovative, groundbreaking, games of all time. Yeah, I miss 2d games, but before mario 64 I must have played a zillion (including Zillion) 2d scrollers. After mario 64 I cannot bear to play em' anymore. Viewtiful Joe is a great example of how 2d and 3d can work together in a great game!

Adults love Disney classic.

[jdifool]

Can't you remember watching some old Disney cartoons (don't know the english translations, so I'll keep my mouth shut here) with your parents ?

Disney's cartoons strength was their ability to make the whole family gathers around the TV, with the children crying when Bambi dies, and parents crying because of their children crying... :)

Now all they can dou is *crap*, *crap*, and some more *crap*. This is actually good for competition, if you ask me.

jdif

as they say in the business

[boogy nightmare]

Arep Arep Arep..... thats all folk's

Re:as they say in the business

[Anonymous Coward]

Arep Arep Arep

I thought it was more like: a-dee-bita, dee-bita, de-bita ..

Mario

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, don't diss Mario 64! It was fantastic (apart from the camera in a couple of places). The mission/level structure was nice and flexible, and big/little world was cute.

of course,

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1) Close 2D Studios
2) ???
3) Profit!!

Rampage

[pangu]

Hopefullly, Stitch will go on a rampage at Disney headquarters.

Re:Rampage

[Anonymous Coward]

Stitch! Now there's something Disney did right that is recent. It was a shocker to see a family film from Disney where the family wasn't perfect and everything not sunny or cheery. The heroine is a messed up little kid with a wild imagination, and her sister has to keep employed in order to keep the family together. But they managed to make it funny and keep the lighthearted touch, and also create the baddest-ass Disney chara alive.

3D-like 2D?

[Dufffader]

I suppose this news doesn't include all recent 2D of cartoon movies that looks like its originally made on a computer in 3D and later rasterized into 2D (with the 3D depth of field still intact).....

Wha?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Next thing you know they'll announce their newest 3D project using this fantastic new technique called "Cell Shading"!

corepirate nazi stock markup FraUDs to continue..

[Anonymous Coward]

to eXPand larcenious phonIE monIE ?pr firm? hypenosys mindphuking bullshipping industrIE?

no 'product' required (see also: moon/mars/bars shot). just yOUR greed/fear/ego/PERCEPTION? tell 'em robbIE?

Money saving effort.

[pvt_medic]

Well obviously this is geared at making more money and costing them less. But I really doubt that a 1D animation studio is going to do to well.
---
Red Line
Blue Line
Orange Line

Critics WOW That was great this is Oscar worth stuff

When they thaw out old Walt...

[adept256]

...he's gonna be pissed!

Re:When they thaw out old Walt...

[Anonymous Coward]

REVENGE OF DISNEY

Starring Jackie Chan

No complaints here.

[caleugene]

This is a boon for traditional animators who now don't need to compete with Disney on that front. Bring back the competition. What happened to Don Bluth anyway..? The Secret of NIMH anybody?

Re:No complaints here.

[kidgenius]

Don Bluth eh? What happened? Did you ever see Titan AE? I believe that was the latest thing coming from him and his crew.

People will miss the 2D?

[Thijssss]

There is a big difference in watching a fully 3D movie and a 2D movie.. the best way to go is to combine them. I hope for disney's sake that they won't forget this. If you want to see a 'perfect' example of 2D combined with 3D I suggest that you look up a trailer of the soon to come new Ghost in the Shell manga movie! Personally I hope disney rots away and that we get more kick ass anime things :)

Here's a consistent JOINT statement.

[Morgaine]

That's a very odd war of words between the two parties, since they completely agree with each other. One can put the two statements together into just one:

The Walt Disney Company and Roy Disney together state: "This difficult decision was based on what is best strategically for company business in both the short and long term, to which end it has de-emphasised creativity and is totally indifferent to its impact on the people who helped to make the company great."

Why have a war when there is agreement? :-)

Why do we care?

[shreak]

Who cares if they stop 2D animation? If there is a demand for it someone will produce it. If not Disney, the someone else. If it turns out 2D becomes a phenom, I'm sure Disney will jump back in to the cash pool.

=Shreak

Anyone heard of Rustyboy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Rustboy or something similar. A friend told me about some dude who makes his own relatively large animated movie with his home pc only.

News Flash

[Effofx]

Walt Disney Co. plans to close all of its 3D animation studios by late March, 2006. The CEO intends to replace them with new 4D animation techniques developed by NASA scientists placing Disney back on top as the leader in animated film production.

Barf.

Good..but

[Anonymous Coward]

Good! But not because Disney is shutting it down, but because the ex-Disney animators are banding together to create their own studio. Maybe we'll see a revivial in interesting american animation.

Walt Disney was a businessman... don't idolize him

[dpbsmith]

"The mouse factory," as his studio was known in the forties, like the rest of Hollywood, was in the business of making money out of dreams. It is possible to acknowledge real affection for the enterprise and its products. But at the same time, we should recall details such as the ugly labor disputes that took place at Disney studios during the forties.

Hand-drawn animation was all but shut down once before, as I recall. In the fifties, Walt Disney shifted the emphasis to live-action movies (and mixtures, as in "Mary Poppins.") Animation wasn't abandoned altogether, but the stuff between 1955 ("Lady and the Tramp") and 1981 ("The Fox and the Hound") was cheaply done and not top-drawer. You didn't have those luscious Chris-van-Allsburg-quality backgrounds, the animation was jumpy and more like Saturday morning cartoons than the classic Disney animation oeuvre.

I believe the survival of animation at Disney depended in part on the new technology of xerography--pencil drawings were photocopied onto cels instead of having to be laboriously inked.

Walt Disney himself didn't have any special affection for animation. It happened to be the business gimmick that worked for him and got him on the road to success. When he was asked late in life what he was proudest of, he answered that it was what he had built--the buildings, the companies, the infrastructure, the businesses.

And, when it came to animation and movie production, he was always a bit of a gadget freak. Or technology enthusiast. He would be just as pleased with Pixar's technology now as he was with the multiplane camera that pushed the envelope in the, let me think, late thirties? For Pinocchio? Used in that amazing over-the-rooftops opening sequence.

Good for 2D

[Anonymous Coward]

Shall Disney join George Lucas in smoking the "CG" labeled crackpipe and leave good 2D animation to the japanese who understand a LOT more about it than Disney has forgotten.

Care factor...

[Goonie]

So? Not everybody likes Disney because of the morality of the company or promoted its products. I could care less if Disney makes porn - though if you think the programs you list there are pornography you need to get out more.

Some people, me included, just happen to like some of the movies it has produced and distributed under its own name- from Snow White, through Tron and Aladdin, through Finding Nemo, as well as under the Miramax label. And as for Miramax, Harvey Weinstein might be an ass, but under his management they've produced and distributed some of the best movies of the past decade - everything from Chicago to Italian for Beginners.

The problem

[mcc]

The problem was that Disney bought up the exclusive rights to the Ghibli distribution and then just *SAT* on it. Okay, so now that they've FINALLY gotten around to releasing some stuff, you can get Kiki's Delivery Service and Laputa at Wal-Mart. That's doing something for the brand, I suppose. (Though those cartoons are older than dirt, and Disney just took absolutely ages to release them on DVD, I believe in the interrim suspending its available-on-video status it had before Disney picked it up. So they're getting better, but for a long time Ghibli's fans were just absolutely livid since for a long time the only byproduct of Disney's having distribution rights for Ghibli was to keep it out of american markets..)

Other than making it available at Wal-Mart, though, Disney has essentially done so badly with the Ghibli brand that I can't imagine it could have been worse had ANYONE AT ALL other than Disney picked up the brand. The Princess Mononoke release was almost laughably mishandled; there was just about no marketing, and it ran only briefly in a very small number of obscure theaters in large urban centers. You had to have either been an anime obsessive or gotten REALLY lucky to have seen it in theaters. That's perhaps excusable though, since Mononoke is a movie of the sort most American audiences couldn't handle, it might not have made it to American movie screens at all on its own. Besides this, the Disney-managed dub for Mononoke was abnormally well-done.

Spirited Away, however, it appears that Disney was literally trying to sabotage, out of fear it would overshadow Lilo and Stitch (also released that summer). They gave it zero marketing and ran it for an eyeblink's worth of time. I wasn't even able to find a theater running it before it stopped. AFTER it won the animated picture oscar, Disney consented, as if they were doing some great act of charity, to show it for an acceptable length of time (again in selected theaters in obscure locations), but they still never marketed it in any noticeable way, and almost all of the populace are still not aware the movie ever existed unless either they followed the Oscars closely or they picked up the DVD from a rack at Wal-Mart going "hm what's this".

The Spirited Away DVD seems (?) to be doing brisk sales despite a total lack of effort on Disney's part to make it do so, but I would submit that at least in that one case had ANYONE other than Disney had the rights to distribute Spirited Away-- especially some small obscure group, since they (unlike disney, for whom millions are a drop in the bucket) would have realized the potential and marketed it for all they had-- would have had an odd, but decent-sized hit on their hands...

Re:The problem

[bludstone]

..and frankly, I dont care.

Im a huge animation fan, and disney is doing a great job releasing quality dvds and fantastic dubbing work. I could care less about their popularity.

I like it, thats enough.

Re:The problem

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you possibly say they were replaced in obsucre theaters. They all were released in major theaters in major markets. I had no problems seeing them in Manhattan. That is no means obscure. They might not have made the hinterlands and that is a point well taken. But to call major market theaters obscure is a little strange.

Re:The problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. It played in the major theatres in Miami with a number of showings for each.

Re:The problem

[mcc]

I spoke unclearly. I was trying to say they seemed to have been released in obscure theaters within major cities, theaters that it's unlikely many people would have walked into at random and just checked out a movie without knowing anything about it ahead of time.

I probably should have left that bit of the comment out as my basis for it was mostly anecdotal. I had to drive to Chicago to see Spirited Away (apparently "the hinterlands" includes Indianapolis, that would have been a shorter drive but they were only showing it there for a single weekend) and what I said did not apply there-- the single theater showing Spirited Away in Chicago was, while small, centrally located. I saw Princess Mononoke in Houston though, and it was shown in a theater in the second basement of a mall hiding behind the Summit which basically just shows art films and which, while a very nice theater, those who don't frequent art films generally ignore.

Re:The problem

[cubicledrone]

Spirited Away, however, it appears that Disney was literally trying to sabotage, out of fear it would overshadow Lilo and Stitch (also released that summer).

And Spirited Away still won the Super Bowl.

Re:The problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you care so much about Disney promoting these films? You've found them, just be happy with that. Take time to enjoy the things you like, don't waste time pushing them on others.

You are all wrong. Disney is not stopping 2d.

[bludstone]

They are just closing down one of their studios (the profitable one. dumbasses. the ones that made lilo and stitch)

and then, switching to digital animation.

Just because its digital, does not make it 3d. In fact, the entire anime industry is, basically, digital animation. I think there is one or two cel painted titles a year now.

Its cheaper, cleaner, and looks better. Even the simpsons are digitally animated.

Really people. Point me to something that says "disney is stopping 2d animation."

Yes, I think this is a horrible thing to do. But they are not stopping all 2d.

At least, I hope not.

Its not about 3D vs 2D

[pmauro]

When I heard this news in the LA Times I thouhgt glossed over it. I don't think this is about 2D or 3D. The fact of the matter is that the good scripts are being made in 3D. The talent is going to shops like Pixar and the results are first and foremost excellent stories and characters. 3D animation costs more than 2D to produce so this is not about making it cost effective. Nemo would have grossed the same amount of money if it was traditionally animated. pete

Not the same company anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Disney is but a corporate conglamorate shell of the wholesome, good company Walt founded.

Just like HP

Issues with the Florida Studio Shutdown

[WebGangsta]

Fine, let Disney shut down the (practically brand-new) Florida animation facility. What other effects does this have?

We all know that the Florida studio was responsible for creating "Lilo and Stitch". As WDW moves forward with a retrofit of the screamingly-fun "Alien Encounter" ride to a more family-friendly "Meet Stitch" format, they ran into a small glitch.

With all the animators gone from the Florida studio, they ended up having to out-source the pre-show animation to some non-Disney company.

On the plus side, it gives Disney one more building to reuse for yet another cartoon-based stage show in the Studios theme park. Better get that created soon while they still have popular films that haven't been used yet. That's right, you can't have too many stage shows that all end before 5pm at a theme park open until 10pm to entertain the masses.

The reason Pixar is considered a threat to Disney is not because they have succeeded in 3D computerized animation where others (except Shrek) have not, but because they excel at the exact same things that the best Disney works did just as well: the storytelling. Toy Story 2 was supposed to go direct-to-video, but its story was so well done and compelling that Disney told Pixar to remake it as a feature.

The medium is not the problem here. It's the message. 2D vs 3D is not what Disney should be concerned with, but rather how to get back to telling a quality story instead of some rehashed dreck. If the story is good, then the audience will come and Disney can continue to build *original* park rides based on those stories.

Yes, Disney needs Pixar because Pixar "gets" what Walt did and will be terribly sorry if they can't come to terms with Pixar on the contract renewal. But Pixar also gets a benefit from the Disney association that they may not get with another studio distribution as the Disney name still carries a bit of class with it, so they may not want to play *too* hard to get. Being independent (like Lucasfilm) may allow you the freedom to create whatever you want and distribute it on your own terms, but it may not be the best solution for everybody.

Re:Issues with the Florida Studio Shutdown

[Anonymous Coward]

"screamingly-fun "Alien Encounter" ride"

Boring.

Well, at least after the first time.

Good rides do more than impress you the first time; look at "Spiderman" over at Universal. I've been on that ride 15 times, and I'd go again. Its that good.

Alien Encounters? I was on twice, and I never want to go back. Its cheesy, boring, and about as suspenseful as "Lilo and Stitch".

Really, get a grip.

Re:Issues with the Florida Studio Shutdown

[reve]

At this point, I pull Marshall McLuhan out from behind a column to tell you you're misinterpreting his thesis.

1. The medium is not the problem here. It's the message.

2. 2D vs 3D is not what Disney should be concerned with

The preceeding two clauses have no relation to each other.

Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares what Disney does? Really, the companies animation studios are near completely irrelevant now. Pixar (older children, adults) and Nickolodeon (really young children) are the studios that matter.

Sonny Bono

[tepples]

it is a fairly safe bet that any theatrically released Disney animated feature will be based on an existing story(out of copyright :)

Though Pinocchio and The Jungle Book came out the year after the European copyright on each expired, this is where the Bono Act may work against Disney. Notice that Disney had to license Tarzan.

Copyright vs. trademark precedent?

[tepples]

What's the landmark case ruling that bans preparing and publishing derivative works involving a trademarked character that has fallen out of copyright?

I think money follows creativity

[hey!]

Well, looks to me like a classic case of a company that has lost its focus.

Are movie audiences that much different than they were a few years ago, when The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King were such huge successes?

When Howard Ashman died, Disney no longer had a critical part of their formula: the go-to musical team. And its probably true they can't just keep retreading The Little Mermaid formula. Struggling with this has given their films of the last decade a hit-or-miss quality. Mulan was a martial epic struggling to break out of the Disney princess musical mold, and only missed greatness because Disney wouldn't let it be the film it needed to be. Tarzan I thought was quite good, thanks in large part to Phil Collins' musical contribution.

I suppose that when photography became practical people supposed painting would die. Traditional 2D animation is an important art form, precisely because it is not perfectly realistic. The artists are not bound by realism and can use color and shading to create compositions that are much more arresting. When Miyazaki shows us a scene with sunlight on a field of flowers, it is "realistic" in a way that a photo-realistic is not: it works on your consciousness in way that is more heightened.

Re:I think money follows creativity

[WuphonsReach]

Ugh, Mulan was like bland, westernized chinese food... complete with salt-n-pepper and a side of McD's fries. I remember walking out of the theatre very dissapointed with how "un-ethnic" it felt.

Disney also has the bad habit of trying to extract every last cent of profit out of it's productions. (The sheer amount of merchandising is offensive.)

Re:I think money follows creativity

[hey!]

I remember walking out of the theatre very dissapointed with how "un-ethnic" it felt.

Uh-huh.

What made it too "un-ethnic" for you? Or equivalently, what would have made it "ethnic" enough? The surreal mish-mash of accents in "Spartacus" aside, does a costume epic have to be "ethnic" to be good?

Story telling is not ethnography. My brother in law is a film professor, who, like you, hated Mulan because it wasn't "ethnic" enough. He pointed out with glee that it was panned by the "People's Daily"; whereas I personally knew many Chinese people who loved the movie. It's exactly this kind of pedantry that caused the 1953 Newberry Awards committee to pass over Charlotte's Web in favor of Secret of the Andes, a worthy enough book which is very educational, and most importantly, anthropologically correct in its description of the Incas. No doubt such earnest books are valuable to such a parochial country as America; but so is a book like Charlotte's Web, despite the fact that it doesn't describe pigs and spiders in a scientifically accurate way.

The Mulan story is a cracking good one, but one that wanted to pay homage to Alexandar Nevsky, not The Little Mermaid. I can understand people who find this inconsistency jarring, and clearly this is the film's major fault. But I have no truck with the school of politically correct criticism that says art has to have a social axe to grind or be "educational".

Re:-6 troll :)

[tepples]

I wish Disney would use Miramax and make an adult animated film.

And I wish Disney would use Cyanide and make no more bribes to senators. To each his own, I guess.

disney should dissolve

[Anonymous Coward]

disney as a megacorp is just useless at this point. they no longer know how to make movies with great stories and their theme parks no longer excite people. Even with the new mission space adds, I doubt it is going to save disney from killing itself slowly. Walt was a business man who was also able to see a good story. Eisner on the otherhand is a lamer and can't do jack. the main reason disney grew early in his disney career is he bought out other companies. that was just a short term turn around. Now that he as pretty much destroyed everything in disney that people wanted, disney should be dissolved and let some one new have a shot.

3D vs 2D or Corporate Juggernaut vs. Small Studio

[wing03]

Corporate masters who have no competency in the field of understanding the product which their company produces is typical.

Disney sees lucrative results in all their 3D films so far and not much in their 2D so the coporate decision is to dump 2D.

If they got beyond the numbers and looked at the content produced and actually stuck their heads up and looked at ALL their competitors, they'd find a few more interesting things.

The one that comes to mind is that the Japanese animation studios have produced legions of fans among children all using 2D animation.

Most of the Saturday morning lineup is all done in 2D. Merchandising lineups spawned from those are bountifull and I'd guess that unlike Disney's overpriced offerings, they make up for in sheer quantity sold. Every Christmas for nearly the last 5 years, what are the hottest toys?

I've been pondering just who Disney is for these days. Aging boomers and other adults? I think a child would get more out of a trip to Japan and seeign the likes of Yu Gi Oh, Pokeman, Sailor Moon and etc more than seeing mutant mice, ducks and whatever that dog thing is.

Disney's time was. Now they are fading into the past with new studios and ideas to take its place.

FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

The only insanity is in the parent post, a post most likely fueled by sentimentality.

No 'hand' animated flick has made comparable money to the hot CG flicks recently, quality or not. And they aren't 'bad' - well, they've got ludicrous plot elements and annoying songs and distracting celebrity voices - but they're no different than the blockbuster animated flicks of years past, and really no different from their CG counterparts in any way except animation style.

Unless you thought The Iron Giant and the Miyazaki imports and all of the Don Bluth toons were 'bad' your argument holds no water.

Judging from the facts - especially from the fact that even non-Disney drawn 2D has bombed, regardless of quality - it seems like CG is what appeals to the target audience of kids now, not classic animation.

it's Disney(TM), not Disney...

[mojoNYC]

for years, Eisner has run Disney into the ground with his absolute focus on the bottom line...while this was good news for shareholders, his approach has been choking off the passion and creativity of this once-proud company...

today's disney is all about creating puffy feelgood movies that push toys at McDonalds--creativity can't survive, much less thrive under the thumb of the marketing department...

stay tuned for Disney's final feature, 'Killing the Golden Goose,' starring Michael Eisner, as the worst Disney villain ever...

Recent BBC Documentary

[16K Ram Pack]

There was a recent BBC documentary (I think in the Imagine series) where there was some discussion about 2D vs 3D, where someone was saying that come the next 2D hit, they'll all go back to it.

And there was John Lasseter talking about that creative genius Miyazaki. Incidentally who uses 2D.

To concur with many authors on this thread, it's not about the 2d or the computers. In the same way that scripts and characters, not actors make good movies, so scripts and characters, not 3d and computers make good movies.

Some Recent US Box Office Stats

[Anonymous Coward]

Traditional or hybrid animation:

Spirited Away - $10,055,859
Princess Mononoke - $2,375,308
The Iron Giant - $23,159,305
Pokemon: The First Movie - $85,744,662
Pokemon: The Movie 2000 - $19,575,608
Pokemon 3: The Movie - $8,240,752
Lilo and Stitch - $145,783,803
Atlantis - $84,056,472
Titan A.E. - $22,753,426
Treasure Planet - $9,475,000
The Rugrats Movie - $100,494,685
Rugrats in Paris: The Movie - $76,507,756
Beavis and Butt-head Do America - $63,118,386
South Park - $52,037,603

Computer animation:
Finding Nemo - $304,986,395
Shrek - $267,665,011
Monsters, Inc. - $255,873,250
Toy Story - $191,796,233
Toy Story 2 - $245,852,179
Ice Age - $176,387,405
A Bug's Life - $162,798,565
Dinosaur - $137,748,063
Antz - $90,713,810
Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius - $80,936,232
Final Fantasy - $32,131,830
Jonah: A VeggieTales Movie - $25,581,229

***

Seems to me that the majority of the successful traditionally-animated movies that didn't bomb were the ones based on TV shows. Lilo & Stitch was the only standout.

As far as quality goes, I don't think there's an argument there, unless you think Pokemon 2000 and The Iron Giant were equally good. CG is what sells.

Re:Walt Disney was a businessman... don't idolize

[16K Ram Pack]

Have a look at the movies on offer here and tell me how much they appeal.

Looks to me like they are returning to the dark days of 'The Black Hole', 'Pete's Dragon' and 'The Rescuers'.

oh?

[Particle010]

it's easy to see why 2D animation is out the door. It's not a money-maker today.

Really? Don't watch much anime do ya?

But then again, what do I know; I'm only an anime club president ^_^ HOWEVER, if anyone thinks that 2D animation is not a money maker, then they're delusional. Furthermore, 2D is a beautiful, distinct style that 3D can NEVER reproduce. Am I biased? Sure, but what I stated is true.

Disney's decision will lead to their demise. It's a known fact that people have left the company because Mike Eisner is ruining Disney. Either Disney will reverse this decision after obvious results, or they will fade away. Disney was the last company I figured would make a decision like this being that they were one of the pioneers of 2D animation. Shame on them!

Pixar got screwed

[Darth23]

Pixar wants the new deal to be similar to George Lucas' Star Wars deal with Fox. Pixar wants to fund the movies themselves, pay Disney/Buena Vista a distribution fee of 10-15% and keep most of the revenue for themselves. Right now they're getting screwed by Disney. They have to split the profits, I believe, plus Pixar wanted Toy Story 2 to could as one of the contracted films, but Disnet insists that it's now because it was *supposed to be* a video release originally - meaning that Pixar got screwed over for making a sequel that was a high enough quality that it was a viable theater release. Disney really can't afford to lost Pixar, since they have a proven and consistent track record. Monsters Inc took them to new heights in 2002 then Finding Nemo surpassed it. (339 million domestically, over 700 million internationally, so far).

Re:Pixar got screwed

[phorm]

Right now they're getting screwed by Disney

Indeed, I think that many companies will probably be offering big bucks to contract with Pixar after they're done with Disney. If not, perhaps they'll fill the gap on their own. Even if Disney offered them a significantly higher deal, they may not accept it due to the bad blood between the two companies.

Seems to me that Disney is somewhat like the MS or RIAA of the cartoon world. If you go against them they try to cut you off, if you're with them they try to bleed you dry of usefulness until you're drained dry.

This, by the way, brings me to a question: how long (how many films left) does Pixar have left before they're no longer beholden to a contract with Disney?

Re:Pixar got screwed

[Jason1729]

Pixar wants to fund the movies themselves, pay Disney/Buena Vista a distribution fee of 10-15% and keep most of the revenue for themselves.

That sounds like a pretty sweet deal for Disney. 10-15% of revenue from a movie that's likely to be a major hit just for using their exisiting distribution channels (which shouldn't cost them much). The problem is that Disney is too greedy.

Re:Pixar got screwed

[Anonymous Coward]

They're done with The Incredibles I think.
Toy Story
Bug's Life
Monsters Inc.
Finding Nemo
The Incredibles...

If "Finding Nemo" were 2D

[Anonymous Coward]

IMO it would not have drawn half as much money.

I really don't see the difference between the 2D Disney movies that failed and the CG ones that succeeded. People say there are differences in quality of story or character, but to me it all comes off as formulaic pap using all the same elements in the same amounts. The only real difference I see is the animation style. I saw all four, and personally thought "Ice Age" and "Dinosaur" were a lot worse than "Treasure Planet" or "Tarzan". But the former two grossed in the 9 digits individually and the latter didn't break 8 combined - why?

The Irony of /. lamenting the death of 2D...

[Kong99]

is rather amusing, since most agree it is being killed by computer generated 3D animation! You bunch of lame hypocrites!! lol

Seriously though, I also think this is sad news. And I also agree that it is not simply... "2D animation is dead." Disney has not produced a 2D animated smash hit since the Lion King (1994), which is currenty the 10th ranked Domestic movie of all time in terms of ticket sales. The next Disney movie on the list (not including Pixar) is Aladdin at 43rd (1992), Snow White (1937 - Re-release) at 60th, Beauty and the Beast (1991) at 84th, then we have Tarzan (1999) at 85th which did 171 Million which is good. The other Disney animation movies to break 100 million since the Lion King are Lilo & Stich (2002) 145 Million, Mulan (1998) 120 Million, Pochahontas (1995) 141 Million and Hunchback (1996) 100 Million.

Mixed in there are some money losers, Hercules, Atlantis, Treasure Planet, Emperor's New Groove, Fantasia 2000, and Country Bears. In particular Treasure and Atlantis were BIG money losers.

The 1 large strike that traditional hand drawn animation has against it is that it is more time consuming and expensive to do hand drawn today than computer generated. Ultimately this is what will kill it.

I suppose if Disney is gonna keep cranking out the sub-par fare it is better if it cost significantly less and takes less time to make!

NOTE: All Ticket Sales figures from BoxOfficeMojo.com

Re:The Irony of /. lamenting the death of 2D...

[Zed2K]

But if you look at all those movies, the animation was really good. There was nothing technically wrong with it. What made the loosers be loosers were the horrible stories. They just weren't good movies.

Wasn't country bears live action?

Re:The Irony of /. lamenting the death of 2D...

[hondo77]

The 1 large strike that traditional hand drawn animation has against it is that it is more time consuming and expensive to do hand drawn today than computer generated. Ultimately this is what will kill it.

Not true. We made Beauty and the Beast with a lot fewer people than are even working there now. Disney bloated itself once the success of the ninties hit. They can make movies cheaper if they want to.

P2P Killed Disney

[red floyd]

If it wasn't for all of those Evil Content Pirates(tm) stealing Disney's stuff and putting it on P2P, they'd have money to pay those poor 2D animators!
</SARCASM>

Cyclical Pump and Dump

[Tablizer]

2D animation will probably keep popping in and out of style forever. The decision of Disney managers is whether to keep those in "out of style" arts around, or dump them when they don't need them and hire them back or contract them as needed.

Just when 2D people learn 3D, it will probably be 90% offshored, so they will dump 3D people also.

Job and career stability is the dying art, not 2D animation.

What this means...

[Overly Critical Guy]

All this means is that Disney is shutting down the studio because they want all their animators in the same building, so Eisner can micro-manage them. This is well-known in the animation community. Disney wants to keep making animated pictures, it just wants to keep everything at home and not have to try to micro-manage to death a studio that's far away from them. Eisner's known to be an overbearing freak.

Re:What this means...

[Anonymous Coward]

There was evidence to prove that Overly Critical Guy is a lying cocksucker, but he deleted it. Think independently.

s/their/they're

[SubtleNuance]

lamness filter me hello I orange juice

Misleading headline to this article

[Overly Critical Guy]

Look, people, Slashdot for some bizarre reason is making this into Disney shutting down a 2D studio. That's not why it's shut down. Eisner is a micro-managing freak and doesn't want to have to deal with managing a distant studio. They want to keep everything at home in one building.

This has nothing to do with "Disney shutting down a 2D studio!" 2D isn't the issue here. It's a management issue.

Re:Misleading headline to this article

[festers]

Why do I have to justify copyright violation in order to hate the way the RIAA treats its artists and its customers? Oh, your sig ws just a troll? Sorry to have bothered...

Re:Misleading headline to this article

[Anonymous Coward]

There was evidence to prove that Overly Critical Guy is a lying cocksucker, but he deleted it. Think independently.

Re:Misleading headline to this article

[Anonymous Coward]

There was evidence to prove that Overly Critical Guy is a lying cocksucker, but he deleted it. Think independently.

Eisner vs. Disney

[Anonymous Coward]

At least Roy Disney and Michael Eisner are in agreement for once. Both feel that the layoffs happened because profit is more important than rewarding dedication.

Eisner is probably just outsourcing the animation to Japan or India. At least geeks and manufacturing aren't the only ones getting targeted for layoffs.

I love this "economic recovery" our country is enjoying. It is almost too good to be true.

Re:Walt Disney was a businessman... don't idolize

[Zed2K]

Hey don't knock Pete's Dragon. It is one of my absolute favorite Disney movies.

Uh oh.

[xankar]

The move away from 2D implies that Disney may renew their contract with Pixar(Finding Nemo was one of the last, if not the last movie in the Pixar/Disney contract).

Hopefully Pixar won't be afraid of lacking the shelter of the Disney name(I seriously doubt Finding Nemo would have pulled in so much money had it not been a 'Disney' movie) and will break off to do their own thing. They're a great company with incredible potential.

Original ?!?!

[Archfeld]

C'mon disney hasn't had an ORIGINAL thought since Walt dies... Not sure if you are trolling or not but how can a remake be ORIGINAL, and DISNEY HAS DONE NOTHING BUT REMAKES FOR like 10 years now, or if it isn't a remake it is a blatant rip-off of someone else's work. Tarzan, original ? George of the jungle orignal NOT...
As to the stories, I agree totally, somthing orignal is a sin to TV EXECs :(

It's the story stupid!

[WebCowboy]

I dunno, I thought Beauty and the Beast, Lion King, Lilo and Stitch, Atlantis and Treasure Planet were all pretty good (both in story and quality of production).

Thing is, I think Michael Eisner has a misperception that CGI is where it's at, when in fact I think that Disney films have been hit-and-mess for decades (and still are) and by chance the latest CGI films just happened to shine brighter recently.

A better strategy would be to stop franchising every damn film to death. Disney pours millions into TV series spin-offs, movie sequels and even more straight-to-video sequels. Every good idea is exploited to death until diminishing returns result in money-losers.

Take Lilo and Stitch, for example. It was very entertaining, visually appealing and a departure from the now-tired formula Disney typically executes in its 2-D features. The marketing machine made millions on merchandising already (toys, clothes and so on). There is a sequel and series to be released. FOR HEAVENS SAKE DISNEY...STOP THERE! The toys, a sequel and a Saturday Morning cartoon on ABC for awhile is just fine...I don't need to see six more movies and toys for ten more years like you did with Lion King! THE SAME GOES FOR FINDING NEMO---just because it's a CG film doesn't make it a franchise with unlimited shelf life. Maybe that's why the CG films HAVE been successful--they've put more of the resources into original films--only Toy Story has been overdone to any degree and none to the extent some of the 2D films have.

Somebody should tell Mr Eisner that his Florida studio didn't let him down--it was the rooms full of pinheads in the boardroom and marketing departments--all well trained in economics but with no creativity or imagination at all. And those are the people he listens to most.

Adult Animated Film?

[hellfire]

Wooooo me too!

I also hope it has lots of tentacles and large breasted women who....

Oh wait... you didn't mean that? Nevermind :)

Curse of the sequels

[Bluetrust25]

The shareholders don't want them taking risks with their money. They want Cinderella 3: Rise of the Sisters, they want tie-ins with McDonalds, they want safe, easy, money.

This is one of the main reasons why Roy E. Disney (Chairman of Disney Animation Department and member of the Disney board of directors, and Walt's last remaining relative in the Disney empire) resigned in a big melt down last November.

In his resignation letter (available here) Roy E. Disney blasted Michael Eisner with, "This company under your leadership has failed in many ways:" then of the many things he slams, specifically bombasts Eisner for "The perception by all of our stateholders -- consumers, investors, employees, distributors, and suppliers -- that the company is rapacious, soulless, and always looking for the 'quick buck' rather than long-term value which is leading to a loss of the public trust." and "Your failure to establish and build constructive relationships with creative partners, especially Pixar, Miramax, and the cable companies distributing our products."

All in all, it's a great letter, rather well written, and my brief highlights don't do it justice. He tells the world that Michael Eisner is a no-good egomaniac who's systematically destroying the legacy that Walt built by not taking risks, going for the quick buck, and releasing sequels rather than using the briliant writing talent already available inside the animation complex.

Now here's how the animators feel. There was a letter of support written recently by Disney's top animators Tim Hauser (writer of the OSCAR nominated short Runaway Brain), Steve Moore (director, OSCAR nominated short Redux Riding Hood, Emmy nominated special Olive, the Other Reindeer), and Dave Pruiksma (supervising animator, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, Hunchback of Notre Dame, The Lion King, etc.) and it was signed by over 4200 members of the animation community:

"The unique traditions of visual storytelling, humor and personality animation on which the Walt Disney Studio had thrived, gave way to politically correct sloganeering, stale one-liners and film seminar formulas to which audiences have refused to respond.

Mr. Eisner's rejection of Walt Disney's heritage has been a colossal failure. Yet this is a man who has been paid over $700 million in compensation since 1996, while the Feature Animation department has been decimated by pink slips.

Now, skilled craftsmen go unemployed while the executive ranks swell. A unique American art form, the Disney cartoon feature, hangs precariously in the balance - - reduced to the production of cheap direct-to-video franchise extensions made by committee.

Without Roy, who will protect the 70-year Disney legacy from becoming no more than a hollow brand?"

The whole scandal is great reading. I recommend checking out savedisney.com (Roy E. Disney's website.) Then while you're feeling indignant that the little spark that Disney still had was purposefully extinguished, go sign the petition then if you're still feeling indignant, purchase some "Roy was right." messenger bags and wear them to Disneyland or Disneyworld the next time you go as a show of support, cause the appropriate behavior to news like this -- a boycott -- just isn't going to happen. So buy the bags, and be obnoxious at the parks.

Anyway, Roy's email address is on the web. You can email him here.

Re:Curse of the sequels

[TheRevenant]

Erm, if you're feeling indignant should you be going to Disneyland?

number of dimensions is irrelevant

[theMerovingian]

All you need is Eddie Murphy playing some miscellaneous beast in order to make a good cartoon.

Lion King was original

[Kircle]

it is a fairly safe bet that any theatrically released Disney animated feature will be based on an existing story(out of copyright :)

The Lion King was an original film created by Disney (so say the director). In my personal opinion, it was last great Disney animation film from a long list of Disney animations.

It's all about Perfect Movie Formula(tm)

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Slashdot covered what makes movies successful a while ago? IIRC, it was called Recipe for the perfect movie blockbuster. Since 3d movies are tend to be made later, so they are more likely to follow the formula, despite the fact that Disney and others have not reached/publicized such discovery.

Re:Walt Disney was a businessman... don't idolize

[Anonymous Coward]

But at the same time, we should recall details such as the ugly labor disputes that took place at Disney studios during the forties.

That wasn't Walt Disney's fault. At the time, union agitators were trying to unionize all of Hollywood, and as we have seen, they succeeded. But Disney wasn't like the other studios (certainly in the area of movie distribution, he was more like an independent film maker), his personal monetary compensation was relatively low, and he was deeply hurt by the betrayal of his animators (not the first time of course, with Ubbe Iwerks' defection years before).

In the fifties, Walt Disney shifted the emphasis to live-action movies (and mixtures, as in "Mary Poppins.") Animation wasn't abandoned altogether, but the stuff between 1955 ("Lady and the Tramp") and 1981 ("The Fox and the Hound") was cheaply done and not top-drawer.

Hmmm, well the backgrounds in "Lady and the Tramp" are pretty amazing, and "Sleeping Beauty" was released in 1959, after seven years in production, hardly on the cheap. Agreed that an internal decline had begun once the emphasis shifted to the theme parks, the television shows (which were funding the theme parks), and live action movies (although "Mary Poppins" would garner Julie Andrews' first Oscar -- not too shabby), but one doesn't really notice it until the movies produced after Disney's death. Then it's all downhill from there.

(What would you consider the resurrection? Does it start with "The Little Mermaid"? Or "The Lion King"?)

Walt Disney himself didn't have any special affection for animation. It happened to be the business gimmick that worked for him and got him on the road to success.

I would tend to disagree. You make Walt Disney sound so mercenary! Certainly from the start, he wanted to elevate animation beyond the rubber-hose and round-nickel-head model into a respectable art form, and this is why he surpassed his competition, like Max Fleischer (who had used the multiplane effect before Disney in Betty Boop cartoons) and Iwerks Animation. The animation unit at Warner Brothers produced better and funnier short films, but most of those animators had gotten their training at Disney, and would never graduate beyond a "unit". That's what made Disney so unique: An incredible passion for improving the field of animation, and constant attention to detail. People forget that "Fantasia", which elevated animation to high (or "high brow") art, was a box-office bomb. "Dumbo" is a remarkable film that touches on many mature social themes (watch it if you're a jaded cynic), and it certainly wasn't slam dunk box-office popcorn tripe. The "Old Mill" is simply amazing. If Disney had solely been intent on making money, he wouldn't have wasted his studio's money on these kinds of films, especially since animated films were exponentially more difficult to create than live action ones.

No doubt that after so many years, he started to get burned out and turned his interest to other things.

Remember, when he started Disneyland, he was around 50 years old! Most people in his position would retire gracefully.

Instead, he was just getting started, and he attacked his new interest with the same passion that fueled his interest in animation. "Disneyland" wasn't a sure bet, and he took out mortgages on his own house and (if I recall correctly) his own life insurance in order to get initial funding for the park when he couldn't find any supporters; everywhere, critics denounced it as "Disney's Folly". That's when he turned to the struggling American Broadcasting Corporation for help.

You don't take crazy risks like that on "gimmicks". You don't gamble with your house and life insurance if you're just in the business of making money. You really have to believe in what you are doing, and for Disney, that meant elevating entertainment to a higher form, and creating a safe oa

Re:Walt Disney was a businessman... don't idolize

[Our Man In Redmond]

The multiplane camera was first used in the Silly Symphony "The Old Mill" (1937). And yes, at the time it was an amazing jump in animation technology.

Maybe not funny, but not off topic

[boobox]

C'mon moderators. Off topic? A line from Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarves ("Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to work we go") interupted mid-stream after they find out they're no longer needed? Unfunny, perhaps, but not off-topic.

There's some question about that

[Cappy Red]

I haven't seen it, but Kimba the White Lion is purported to have a very similar story and character set, and was made around thirty years earlier in Japan. Wikipedia's Lion King page makes the assertion that some of the film's animators thought they were doing a remake.


*honk*

It's a GOOD decision!

[Dukael_Mikakis]

With all the free time, and freed resources, animators and Disney execs can watch Miyazaki's work. Spirited Away was marvelous.

Of course, you could make the argument that Disney owns Miramax which licenses the American releases of Miyazaki's work, but does Disney *really* know about his work?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Just to clarify a little...

[letdownjournals]

... And for what it's worth... Disney TV Animation is a separate department, they're the ones who do the TV shows and direct-to-DVD/video sequels. They've had cuts but they're not being dissolved just yet. Pepper Ann fans, rejoice!

I wouldn't doubt that the reasoning for this decision is that their TV shows and non-theatrical sequels bring in as much or more profit as their recent 2-D features-- at only a fraction of the budget. (which should be evident by the quality.)

Remember "New Coke"? How about Bugs?

[Fantastic Lad]

Any corporate executive decision can be reversed.

Better hope so. 3D makes me yawn. As entertaining as Toy Story and Finding Nemo were, they remained souless and plastic-looking compared hand-drawn images. Like Yoda the Muppet versus Yoda the Kung-Fu Star. One had riveting charisma. The other was entirely forgettable.

Remove the human element too far, and you get video game cut-scenes.

--There's a reason they chose Fish and Toys and Monsters (inc.) for subject matter. It's because computers are terrible tools when compared to the humble pencil when it comes to capturing the complex emotive substance which is found in most animated subjects. Humanoid subjects, especially. --Even in Nemo, the most technically advanced of the Pixar/Disney model, the humans moved around like department store dummies.

Now pull up an old Warner Bros. cartoon and watch the bunny and the duck do stuff. Part of what makes those cartoons so amazing, aside from the infinitely more complex and expressive actions performed by those characters than any fish could hope to replicate, is that 2D can do the impossible, and it can do so with ease. --Exactly because it's 2D pretending to be something else. 2D can bend rules all over the place. As such, it can be far more than even true 3D.

3D, however, must obey rules. (Like the Matrix). and as such, creates its own limitations. Think about that crazy roller-coaster cartoon at the beginning Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" Unless you go Photoshop or (sic) Flash, you're simply never going to achieve that kind of effect.

"There Is No Fish"

Bugs and Daffy cannot be reduced or understood by the painfully limited musings of a f***ing CAD program. It's that simple. Unless you can do the impossible, you can't capture duck, rabbit or humanity convincingly. You cannot accurately mirror the soul Eyes popping out in shock doesn't work in 3D. In fact, eyes popping out in shock is faintly distrubing in 3D. In 2D, however, such an effect is a metaphor, not a direct reality.

The Powers That Be would like you to think that we are limited to this 3D universe and to the 'rules' which govern it. This is entirly false; this cage has a door, but the more of this subconscious hammering we take in the form of computer generated entertainment, now hitting ever more frequently as very young kids, the more limited we will become programmed to think of ourselves as being. One more concrete block to enslave ourselves behind.

But then of course the whole digital trend is designed, I think, to separate us ever further from our own souls. That executives at a giant media corp would be the people to help this along is of no surprise.

-FL

Re:Walt Disney was a businessman... don't idolize

[a24061]

But at the same time, we should recall details such as the ugly labor disputes that took place at Disney studios during the forties.

Walt Disney hated unions and supported McCarthy's witch-hunts.