(Insert stupid Blog name here)

I'm not sure I entirely follow your line of argument here. On the one hand you are arguing that Disney should stick to traditional animation techniques, but on the other you are arguing that they should emulate Pixar who are a CGI-only shop? Do you think that traditional animation still has a future? I do a bit of photography in my spare time and it is amazing to see how quickly the traditional film/darkroom techniques are being replaced by digital/photoshop. I suspect the same is true for animation?

 

Chris

I didn't mean to imply Disney should stick-to traditional techniques - but rather a traditional structure within the production environment. That is, the artists should be the ones making the creative decisions, not the people managing the budgets. That's how Pixar is run, and how Disney used to be run. The type of animation being created makes no difference. All animation, whether traditional or CGI, starts out as hand-drawn art. Character designs, color scripts, story boards, layouts, props - all of it begins with the artists.

 

However, I did mention that Disney abandoned traditional animation, which is extremely short-sighted of them. They're assuming that Pixar's films have been successful because they're computer-animated, not because they have good stories and characters. So they're trying to use CGI to fix their problems, when the medium has nothing to do with it.

 

All films live or die by how good the stories are, and how engaging the characters are. Disney doesn't get this (at the corporate level, anyway). They base their decisions on marketing research, and assumptions about what their target demographics want. Not on what makes a good film. CGI isn't going to fix that. If CGI was a cure-all for bad storytelling, Dinosaurs wouldn't have been the colossal failure that it was. They don't talk much about that film, do they? Disney has already attempted CGI, and lost millions on it. (Rumor has it that it was the most expensive film in history up to that point, with an estimated budget exceeding $200 million.)

 

As for a future for traditional animation? That's a good question. Most animation being produced now (if you count TV) is still traditional. Computers have taken over many aspects of production - ink and paint is all digital now, and even some inbetweening is done using software (although it generally looks terrible), but there are only a handful of shows that are CGI, and there's way more TV animation produced than feature film animation.

 

Feature films are certainly leaning towards CGI though (at least in the U.S.). Even so, there are currently two stop-motion films in release (Wallace & Gromit, and Corpse Bride). You'd think if anything would be supplanted by CGI, it would be stop-motion. You could re-create the look of it almost exactly, and it would be far more flexible to produce. And yet, there they are. I think there will always be traditional animation coexisting with CGI. All forms of animation are still practiced to some degree, although not at a commercial level.

 

The big difference with computer animation vs. digital photography (or desktop publishing, or digital video, or digital audio), is that computer animation does not gain you anything in terms of time or cost savings. It's not any easier to produce than hand-drawn animation, nor is it any cheaper. Animation is still a laborious process, no matter how it's created. What CGI gains you is a certain look that would be impossible to achieve with hand-drawn artwork. It's also very good at moving things in perspective, which is really tough to do well traditionally.

 

At some point, I think that there will be faster methods for producing computer animation. Pre-animated movements that can be recalled from libraries, for example. There's already some "automated" dialog animation used for TV shows. But those will be limited to cheap productions - TV shows or low-budget CGI features. "Good" animation will always be a one-frame-at-a-time process. It just doesn't look right without the human touch.

 

But I don't think traditional animation will ever disappear. Artists are too "hands on" for that to happen. Not everyone likes working on computers, and CGI isn't appropriate for telling every story that can be animated. That last point, more than anything else, will really determine animation's future.

Disney is hypocritical because their PR says they are abandoning traditional animation but they continue to pump out sequels using traditional animation like their is no tomorrow. Some of which are in the theaters.

 

For instance, you had the Disney Heffalump movie, and they cranked out a Halloween sequel recently.

 

Plus Lilo and Stich 2.

 

Before that there was Mulan 2, and before that Lion King 1.5.

 

I'm sure they are heavily taking advantage of digital assett management in order to reuse backgrounds, animation sequences, poses, etc... There is no way they can crank these out so fast otherwise.

 

I know they closed down the studio in Florida, but still, they have to be hiring someone to do whatever proportion of new animation is in these things.

 

If they were so anti-traditional animation they wouldn't see a market for these things.

 

They are also probably making money hand-over-fist on the new Cinderella DVD.

 

If the public was so enamored with CGI as to turn their nose up at traditional animation, then all traditional drawn animation would be worthless assets. That is clearly not the case.

 

So I think Disney made that statement because they were looking for an excuse for their movies (like Return to Neverland and Treasure Planet) bombing and to cover the fact that they were going to have to retool and make in-house CGI movies to compete with Pixar after they leave.

Actually, all of the traditional stuff that's coming out is produced overseas now. The stories and layouts are generally done here (by Disney TV), but the actual animation is done in other countries because it's so much cheaper. That's how they can keep cranking the stuff out.

 

So as far as doing their own feature animation goes, Disney has indeed abandoned traditional animation. All of these other films are strictly B-grade sequels, intended for the home video market. If they turn out good enough and Disney thinks they can make some extra money off it, they get released theatrically.

 

Oddly enough, this was the cause of the rift between Disney and Pixar. Toy Story 2 was intended to be direct-to-video. But it turned out so well, Disney pretty much had to release it theatrically. Pixar felt it should count against their contract with Disney as one of the theatrical films they were obligated to produce. Disney refused. So Disney got the box office money, and Pixar got stuck making an extra film.

 

But you're absolutely right - they do know there's money to be made from traditional animation, and they'll milk it for all it's worth. They just don't want to put any more money into it than they absolutely have to.

BTW, I heard a rumor that Pixar was going to or did buy out the Florida studio that Disney shut down, and then start up thier own 2D division. Supposedly Pixar has more respect for traditional 2D animation than Disney does.

 

Obviously they have some people with a 2D background (Brad Bird, Iron Giant).

 

The moral of the story is, Disney issues press releases that use traditional animation as a scapegoat, and jumps on whichever bandwagon they think will work even if it means being hypocrites. Pixar, who is in a position to gloat about the shift from 2D to 3D, is really more interested in the importance of story and creativity over the techniques used.

BTW, I heard a rumor that Pixar was going to or did buy out the Florida studio that Disney shut down, and then start up their own 2D division.  Supposedly Pixar has more respect for traditional 2D animation than Disney does.

 

I hadn't heard the Florida rumor, but the 2D rumor has been floating around for some time. I doubt they'd buy the Florida studio - it's too far removed from their current studio.

 

I think most of the artists at Pixar started out in 2D animation. John Lasseter, Pete Docter, Andrew Stanton, Brad Bird... the list is pretty long. I know quite a few alumni from our college who are up there, and almost to a person their background is in traditional animation.

 

Pixar tends to recruit people who are good artists and animators first. They always stress that when they come by to do guest lectures or portfolio reviews. Computer skills are secondary, since they have to teach animators to use their systems anyway.

 

It wouldn't surprise me to see Pixar do some traditional animation. But if they did, I think they'd start out with a short subject or two.

Hi there!

 

I don't think the used technique does mean anything for the success of a movie. I'd bet "Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" with its antique stop-motion technique will easily outsell Final Fantasy...

 

Greetings,

Manuel