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.

[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 As said by the Pixar site, in February 1997, Pixar entered into the Co-Production Agreement (which superseded the Feature Film Agreement) with Disney pursuant to which we, on an exclusive basis, agreed to produce five original computer-animated feature-length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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

"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

[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:Irony

[Nadsat]

If you can DO it, DREAM it.

--Roy Disney

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: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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.