Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Disney Shuts Down 2D Animation Studio

Posted by simoniker on from the four-dimensions-are-where-it's-at dept.

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."

57 of 335 comments (clear)

  1. It's an insane decision. by Teddy+Beartuzzi · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    1. Re:It's an insane decision. by krymsin01 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      stuff
    2. Re:It's an insane decision. by jdifool · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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 As said by the Pixar site, in February 1997, Pixar entered into the Co-Production Agreement (which superseded the Feature Film Agreement) with Disney pursuant to which we, on an exclusive basis, agreed to produce five original computer-animated feature-length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

      --
      Let's overcome our weakness.
    3. Re:It's an insane decision. by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "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...

    4. Re:It's an insane decision. by angusr · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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...

    5. Re:It's an insane decision. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:It's an insane decision. by Golias · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.)

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    7. Re:It's an insane decision. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

    8. Re:It's an insane decision. by clickety6 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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!

      --
      ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    9. Re:It's an insane decision. by gnalre · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

      --
      Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
    10. Re:It's an insane decision. by mshiltonj · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Software Wars
    11. Re:It's an insane decision. by perly-king-69 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --

      --
      This sig is inoffensive.

    12. Re:It's an insane decision. by gnalre · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
    13. Re:It's an insane decision. by jdbo · · Score: 2, Informative

      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!)

    14. Re:It's an insane decision. by Cappy+Red · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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*

      --
      This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
    15. Re:It's an insane decision. by Dalroth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

    16. Re:It's an insane decision. by jejones · · Score: 2

      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!

    17. Re:It's an insane decision. by usrerco · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > 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.

    18. Re:It's an insane decision. by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    19. Re:It's an insane decision. by MCZapf · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.

  2. Irony by alset_tech · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.

    --
    Standing on the shoulders of giants.
  3. Save Disney site. by AchmedHabib · · Score: 5, Informative

    Save Disney Save Disney site for those who cares.

    1. Re:Save Disney site. by cgranade · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      #define DRM chmod 000

    2. Re:Save Disney site. by Fnkmaster · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

  4. "Disney" != The Walt Disney Company by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:"Disney" != The Walt Disney Company by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:"Disney" != The Walt Disney Company by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

    3. Re:"Disney" != The Walt Disney Company by divide+overflow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >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.

  5. adios 2D by phuller10 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:adios 2D by apoch2001 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  6. Maybe it's for the good by octal666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    DON'T PANIC
  7. To make it even funnier..... by Dark+Nexus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

    --
    Dark Nexus
    "Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
  8. Same issues the game industry had by Drakino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Same issues the game industry had by Cebu · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Same issues the game industry had by proj_2501 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Road To El Dorado was done by Dreamworks.

  9. Legacy Animation on Legacy Server by liquidweb · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    --
    --- Matthew Hill
    "To quote the self is an act of the self riteous and uninitiated sub-moronic" - Matthew Hill
    1. Re:Legacy Animation on Legacy Server by Aidtopia · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  10. 3D isn't better than 2D by aliquis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  11. Blame Y2K by macgyvr64 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  12. Correct me if I'm wrong by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  13. It's a shame by madssj · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  14. -6 troll :) by mrshowtime · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
  15. of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  16. Re:Pixar by NuShrike · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  17. Rampage by pangu · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  18. Wha?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  19. News Flash by Effofx · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

    --
    - Gentlemen, start your hybrids!
  20. Walt Disney was a businessman... don't idolize him by dpbsmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "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.

    --

    "How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!

  21. Care factor... by Goonie · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  22. Its not about 3D vs 2D by pmauro · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

  23. Issues with the Florida Studio Shutdown by WebGangsta · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  24. I think money follows creativity by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  25. Recent BBC Documentary by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

  26. The Irony of /. lamenting the death of 2D... by Kong99 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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

  27. Cyclical Pump and Dump by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  28. Misleading headline to this article by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  29. Curse of the sequels by Bluetrust25 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.