PDA

View Full Version : Down and Out in Orlando: Impending Disney Layoffs Hit Hard


RobertoOrtiz
12-23-2003, 08:16 PM
Quote:
"ORLANDO - When Craig Grasso was a little boy, he saw Bambi and knew right then what he wanted to do when he grew up: work on Disney animated films.

"And I wasn't thinking I wanted to draw Bambi," Grasso says. "I was looking at the backgrounds and thinking, I want to do that."

As Jiminy Cricket sang in Pinocchio, dreams come true. For 10 years, Grasso has been an artist at Walt Disney Feature Animation Florida. He is part of the team that made Mulan, Lilo & Stitch and the latest Disney animated release, Brother Bear.

He and his wife, Jodi, a freelance graphic designer, live in a handsome house in Orlando that hums with the chatter of four kids. Daughters Sable, 31/2, and Eden, 9 months, play with a rag doll version of Woody, the cowpoke from Toy Story, as their father talks.

Grasso, an intense, articulate man who looks a decade younger than his 40 years, says, "The Florida studio is the closest you're going to get to what Disney's dream was originally.

"You talk to anybody (at the studio), and they expected to be here for 30 years."

But now he is watching the only job he ever wanted fade to black. On Nov. 14, production was halted on the Florida studio's only project, A Few Good Ghosts.

David Stainton, Disney president of feature animation, told about 250 employees of the studio, located in the Disney-MGM Studios Theme Park, that they would be paid through Jan. 12.

"Stainton told us they're keeping their options open," Grasso says, "that there was no final decision about the animation studio.

"But we were encouraged to seek other employment."

This year, Disney closed its feature animation studios in Tokyo and Paris and laid off more than 100 staffers in its California and Florida studios. Animation desks from the California studio that were relics of the days of the Nine Old Men, Walt Disney's legendary animation team, were auctioned off in December.

The Disney empire was born 75 years ago when an animated mouse first strutted across movie screens in Steamboat Willie. Disney produced the first animated full-length feature film when Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs whistled while they worked in 1937, and the company parlayed its animated characters into theme parks to become one of the giants of the entertainment industry.

Now the company seems poised to turn its back on the art form that first made its fortunes: 2-D animated feature films.

That stance is a major reason for the very public rift between Disney chairman and chief executive Michael Eisner and board member Roy E. Disney, who until his resignation Nov. 30 was the only remaining Disney family member involved in running the corporation. (He is the nephew of company founder Walt Disney.)
"

>>Link<< (http://www.sptimes.com/2003/12/21/Floridian/Lost_art.shtml)
-R

MartinGFoster
12-23-2003, 08:38 PM
I feel for them all and it makes for a gloomy Christmas. This business (2d and 3d animation) is pretty unstable though, and it's hard to reconcile it with having kids and owning a house.

I have a wife, two kids, a house, and only 5 months more employment before my current project wraps. I am the main provider for the family. So the future is always uncertain. I don't know anybody who thinks they have a job for the next 30 years. Except perhaps teachers in public education and government employees.

So, the best thing you can do is save all your money while you are working, cut your costs to the minimum, and hope you can survive the downtime.

Ryan-B
12-23-2003, 09:03 PM
Click here to read about the good old days of animation! (http://www.awn.com/mag/issue1.4/articles/sito1.4.html)

Tychoides
12-23-2003, 10:46 PM
just picture these guys demo reels .." so uhmm you animated pinochio ? good uhmm... and uh where do you see yoursefl in 5 years ? Can i kiss your drawing hand ? "

RockinAkin
12-24-2003, 03:57 AM
Disney is almost dead.
Heres to the animators finding better jobs elsewhere. :beer:

MarkCurtis
12-24-2003, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Ryan B
Click here to read about the good old days of animation! (http://www.awn.com/mag/issue1.4/articles/sito1.4.html)

Excellent link.

Mr_Smee
12-24-2003, 02:20 PM
I read a book in the past that didn't shine the greatest light on Disney. Probably happens in all corporations. But the difference was Disney was an artist at heart. He understood animation and would take chances. He did things for the final movie not just to satisfy stockholders. He wanted to satisfy himself.

It used to be the dream of most artists animators to work at Disney. I can't imagine thinking that now.

mattregnier
12-24-2003, 03:06 PM
On one hand yes I feel terrible when any company decides to do mass layoffs like this. And it's really shitty that they do it over the holidays, but this does remind me of another societal shift in the way people work. Remember when those hundreds of thousands of typists back in the 70's/80's were almost put out of work because all the sudden this little box with a keyboard and mouse came out? They were either forced to learn a new medium or find a new job.

This sounds like Disney's way of bringing people up to speed with a new medium, albeit a very disheartening and cruel way of doing so...

CourtJester
12-24-2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by MartinGFoster
I feel for them all and it makes for a gloomy Christmas. This business (2d and 3d animation) is pretty unstable though, and it's hard to reconcile it with having kids and owning a house.

I have a wife, two kids, a house, and only 5 months more employment before my current project wraps. I am the main provider for the family. So the future is always uncertain. I don't know anybody who thinks they have a job for the next 30 years. Except perhaps teachers in public education and government employees.

So, the best thing you can do is save all your money while you are working, cut your costs to the minimum, and hope you can survive the downtime.

S'truth!

I tip my hat to you sir. I'm one week from such a gap myself, and I couldn't imagine having a family in this boat with me, let alone a mortgage.

That being said, were I a 2D animator, "Toy Story" would have been sufficient warning for me to upgrade skills and put the financial shields up. Even if the 2D style undergoes a revival in the future, the new NPR rendering techniques just might bury the old methods for good, from an economical standpoint.

BarryRIT
12-24-2003, 09:59 PM
I was actually just at MGM a week ago and took the animation tour. The walk through with the windowns looking down into the studio was a sad sight. Desks were cleared off and the place just looked deserted. The guy there said all the artists were just on a break after working long hours on brother bear but it was obvious many had completely cleaned out their stuff. I hope the studio can find a way to get back on its feet.

Kion
12-25-2003, 08:58 AM
I think this is a good warning for 3d guys as well. 3d is surging just like 2d did in the early 90's. There is a chance that feature 3d animation can hit a down period as well. Its so important to keep your artistic skills sharp. After taking to a few 2d guys they say it is still not as bad as it was in late 70's early 80's

Ed Bittner
12-25-2003, 01:31 PM
What is Pixar thinking?? Rumor has it that they are opening a 2D animation division, so, like they don't know where to find REALLY talented people? If I was doing the hiring at Pixar, I would get in touch with everyone Disney shat on, and hire 'em NOW!
Ed

Fasty
12-26-2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by mattregnier
On one hand yes I feel terrible when any company decides to do mass layoffs like this. And it's really shitty that they do it over the holidays, but this does remind me of another societal shift in the way people work. Remember when those hundreds of thousands of typists back in the 70's/80's were almost put out of work because all the sudden this little box with a keyboard and mouse came out? They were either forced to learn a new medium or find a new job.

This sounds like Disney's way of bringing people up to speed with a new medium, albeit a very disheartening and cruel way of doing so...

I don't buy that analogy. When photography came along, did all painters have to be retrained to use cameras? 3D should be the death of traditional animation no more than photography was the death of painting.

It's appears to me to be a "monkey see monkey do" situation. Haven't business leaders yet learned to Zig when others are Zagging? Some smart studio out there should be snapping up all this amazing talent in readiness for the inevitable 2D "renaissance".

chadtheartist
12-26-2003, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Fasty
I don't buy that analogy. When photography came along, did all painters have to be retrained to use cameras? 3D should be the death of traditional animation no more than photography was the death of painting.

You're right about that. Photography didn't really replace all Painters. Nor did the advent of Quark get rid of all Layout and Graphic Designers. But there is one thing that I don't think people are looking at with this.

The transition, and popularity of 3D is going to drive salaries way, way down from what they currently are. I feel sorry for those kids spending $70,000+ going to college to learn the 3D trade, because I feel that soon entry level jobs are going to be very low in salary, ie $20,000 a year.

What do you think will happen when 3D becomes a lot more automated? How many people will be out of jobs then? This world is a scary place sometimes.

I'm not trying to bring everyone down, but I just want others to see that because 3D is so popular today, that may not always be the case. In 10 years it might be some of the 3D studios doing all of these layoffs, in spite of all it's past glory.

Just some food for thought.

Joss
12-29-2003, 05:11 PM
I dislike hearing about salaries decreasing in 3d. We need to be on a united front to stop this from happening. I think we suffer enough with the costs of schooling! grrrrrr

I'm sure some organization has already started a union(?)

paintbox
12-29-2003, 09:59 PM
It's terrible to hear that what make Disney big is being tossed aside now. Some executives at that place should actually *gasp* watch their movies. I suggest to start with Peter Pan (with Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman) for a good lesson.

The magic of Disney was there because their heart was in telling stories, and not making money.

Anyway, I don't think 2D animation will be truly gone. Maybe less frequent, but not gone. An artist always has to pick the style that best tells the story, sometimes it will be 2D, sometimes 3D, or something in between.

jeremybirn
12-30-2003, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Joss
I dislike hearing about salaries decreasing in 3d. We need to be on a united front to stop this from happening. I think we suffer enough with the costs of schooling! grrrrrr

I'm sure some organization has already started a union(?)

Nobody in the industry asked all those students to enroll in all those expensive training programs. Those schools are an industry unto themselves, and production companies don't owe anything to the students who pay those schools. Patronizing those businesses is your own decision: it's your time and your money that you're putting on the line, and the outcome is up to you. The surplus of students trying to break into this industry is the main reason starting wages keep going down.

Yes, there are unions (http://www.mpsc839.org/) for some people, including the Disney animators being laid off in Orlando.

There are good things about Unions: Film is a heavily unionized industry, and issues like screen credit on films are negociated by union representatives. Not having a seat at that table, CG people get listed very late, after the caterers and all the other unionized employees. Unionized workers get benefits like percentages of the film's profits that could not be negociated by an individual VFX artist.

There are also people who don't want unions: Some of the top companies give good pay and benefits without needing a union. Even in companies not making big profits, unions often require employers to pay for expensive things like employee health care. If unionization were wide-spread in the US, it would accelerate the move towards overseas outsourcing of CG work.

-jeremy:bounce:

chadtheartist
12-30-2003, 02:27 PM
Isn't the Actors Union/Guild the reason why so many shows/films are now being filmed in Canada, instead of LA?

I agree with Jeremy though. A Union will help CG artists right now, and will keep salaries at a competitive level. But eventually that might end up backfiring, and forcing companies to outsource their work elsewhere, i.e. India or Korea.

One of the reasons why I'm not even looking for a job in the CG industry, aside from being green, is the fact of starting salaries being so low. I guess if I were super talented, I could theoretically get a higher starting salary, but I doubt I'll be that talented/skilled even with some more 3D experience under my belt. Thems the breaks though. But I do enjoy this stuff, so who knows. Maybe one day I might try that unstable career path of the 3D artist. Lord knows I'm already doing that as an illustrator! LOL

BoydLake
12-30-2003, 07:23 PM
I think Disney quitting 2d is sad too. But c'mon...... a forty year old animator that has been asleep for eight years while not adapting his skills to cg is kind of hard to feel that sorry for. Some of those guys seemed to just put their heads in the sand while their skills became obsolete. If they have half a brain, they'll find work somewhere and do fine.

Oh yeah.... Just what we don't need right now is a union. :hmm:

bentllama
12-30-2003, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by Boyd Lake
I think Disney quitting 2d is sad too. But c'mon...... a forty year old animator that has been asleep for eight years while not adapting his skills to cg is kind of hard to feel that sorry for. Some of those guys seemed to just put their heads in the sand while their skills became obsolete. If they have half a brain, they'll find work somewhere and do fine.

what an impugnant thing to say!

where do you get off making a comment like that?
since when do stellar 2D skills become obsolete? NEVER.
godlike draftsmanship is worth its weight in gold. if they picked up 3d [after all 3d is JUST A TOOL] they would blow you away with their work. they could eclipse anything you would ever do with a mere stroke of their pencil.

if you had half a brain you would put some bbq sauce on your heel to make that foot of yours taste better.

roger
12-30-2003, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by bentllama
what an impugnant thing to say!

where do you get off making a comment like that?
since when do stellar 2D skills become obsolete? NEVER.
godlike draftsmanship is worth its weight in gold. if they picked up 3d [after all 3d is JUST A TOOL] they would blow you away with their work. they could eclipse anything you would ever do with a mere stroke of their pencil.

if you had half a brain you would put some bbq sauce on your heel to make that foot of yours taste better.

HA - good one bentllama! :)

I agree with Boyd Lake. The reason a lot of 2d animators are out of work is because they DON'T want to learn 3d. When you get a chance take a look at animationnation.com (http://www.animationnation.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php) and read what a lot of the 2d animatiors are saying about 3d.

BoydLake
12-30-2003, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by bentllama
what an impugnant thing to say!

where do you get off making a comment like that?
since when do stellar 2D skills become obsolete? NEVER.

They became obsolete at Disney didn't they? I'd say when your pink slip arrives, your obselescence may be showing. I didn't say they weren't still viable. On the contrary, If you read what I said once more, I did say they ought to be able to find work and do well... some of them in 2d at remaining 2d shops, others will finally get some 3d skills or learn to at least speak the language to become cg directors, producers etc.
godlike draftsmanship is worth its weight in gold.
Sure it is. But the fact remains that there will be fewer 2d keyframers working away at the tables in the future... at least on this side of the pond. 2d skills will migrate to pre-production much like in the games industry.

if they picked up 3d [after all 3d is JUST A TOOL] they would blow you away with their work. they could eclipse anything you would ever do with a mere stroke of their pencil...

Now now.... no need to get personal here. Obviously they are very talented as 2d artists. Many would and do adapt well to 3d, but admittedly, others don't.

I think you read my comments wrongly. I never dissed skills of 2d animators, just that some of them tended to ignore the cg tsunami approaching their shore and then they act surprised when they finally are forced to face it.

The same happened a decade ago in the drafting world when CAD hit the architecture scene in a big way. Many ignored it and said "a computer never will replace me!"- not realizing that there were a ton of guys who saw the writing on the wall and went to night school to learn CAD. Once they learned it, they were ten times more productive and then the pink slips arrived.

Sure, they were still great draftsmen, but their manual drafting skill just wasn't in demand like it used to be. Was it more appealing to look at a manual drawing? You bet, but it wasn't worth the extra time and cost, and soon CAD drafstmen learned to dress up their drawings to look cleaner and nicer still. The manual drafters either adapted or changed careers.

Unfortunatley for a lot of animators here in the U.S. that's the reality. Godlike skills or no.

if you had half a brain you would put some bbq sauce on your heel to make that foot of yours taste better.

Here we go again getting all personal...:rolleyes: I'm quite comfortable with what I said...sauce or no.

Ryan-B
12-30-2003, 10:14 PM
What is being done to Disney's 2D artists today will also be done to 3D artists in the future, but for different reasons.

There's a group of artists that have spent years working in CG that haven't bothered to learn or improve their skills. They've become self-satisfied and probably never had a strong desire to improve their abilities. This group of artists tends to be rich kids. They were hired right away from the 3D training schools around six or seven years ago. I run into them often, but they are slowly dying out. As software has evolved, their limited abilities are being made obsolete.

Already, software is making the creation of photorealistic images extremely easy to achieve. Programs, such as 3D Studio Max 6, are coming with preset materials for real-world surfaces. Realistic lighting can easily be created with HDRI techniques. Unskilled people will be able to create photorealistic scenes with a few button clicks.

3D software will follow the path of photographic equipment, and make it easier and easier for unskilled people to create images. These unskilled people will create banal and mediocre images with ease. This will be when the great artists will really stand out from the unskilled button clickers. I'm hoping I can improve my skills and move away from being one of the button clickers.

bentllama
12-30-2003, 11:37 PM
they could eclipse anything you would ever do with a mere stroke of their pencil...

the YOU was in plural form. you, my, his, hers, anyone's...

I am sorry, but I still stand my ground in firm belief that understanding traditional skills coupled with great vision are the foundation for great art.

I am certain many other 3D industry professionals share my opinion.

I think you read my comments wrongly.

it seems we both might have skirted around thinking of meanings not intended.

RormanKnockwell
12-31-2003, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by Boyd Lake
I think Disney quitting 2d is sad too. But c'mon...... a forty year old animator that has been asleep for eight years while not adapting his skills to cg is kind of hard to feel that sorry for. Some of those guys seemed to just put their heads in the sand while their skills became obsolete. If they have half a brain, they'll find work somewhere and do fine.

I've remained silent on this issue until now because it affects me personally, and I have felt that silence was a more prudent course. I work with closely with Craig (the artist in the interview) on a daily basis, and consider him a good friend.

You are right in not feeling sorry for him. Craig is an amazing talent, one of the most talented guys at Disney, in my opinion. I can assure you that he will do just fine. He is by no means asleep at the wheel. Nearly everyone at the Florida studio knew this was coming, and those who were so inclined have been preparing themselves. Disney was expecting that many animators would not be able to hack it in the CG world. Disney was wrong, and a huge amount of talent is about to hit the CG market. Craig knows enough Maya to get by (I should know, I helped tutor him), but he's also aware that his future relies on creativity, not technology. It is the right choice.

I think the point of the article is not to feel sorry for the animators, it's to recognize that we are about to lose something important. It's not just the lost jobs, it's not just the breakup of a great team, it's the downfall of a tradition of filmmaking that has become something of an institution. CG technology is only worthwhile when it is in the service of the film, when it extends the tradition of great animated filmmaking. When a company embraces technology for the wrong reasons: economy, the "herd" mentality, or the capricious whim of "creative" executives, then that company is in for a big let-down.

bentllama
12-31-2003, 01:23 AM
thanks for posting your thoughts on the issue RormanKnockwell...you spoke eloquently where I unfortunately could not.

I have crossed paths with several people down at the Florida studio and I personally work with an ex-Disney Floridian everyday. I would hear first hand some of the feelings of triumph and heartbreak at the studio.

They produced some great work and were responsible for pushing the medium ahead. Lilo and Stitch was a great example of refreshing the audience with classic hints of animation's roots.

RormanKnockwell said it best when he spoke of creativity being the key.

"future relies on creativity, not technology"

Kion
12-31-2003, 01:31 AM
You Have people like Glene Keane who are at the top of there game in 2d and then you throw a computer in front of them and say learn this. That's like telling Micheal Jordan to play baseball. I'm not sayin he won't be good at it, I'm just saying why. The only reason 3d is big now is becuase of money. The only consistant studio with 3d films is Pixar. Other studios have been shakey with their films. Everyone is trying to be pixar, not many have made it.

I also think the comon misconception is the how people are trying to recreate 3d with 2d. In 3d the look is the render, with 2d its all about the Line. I would even say that 2d is more soul than 3d, meaning that the emotion or intent comes from the artist down his arm into his pencil and straight to the paper. I think one day 3d will be there, but there are bounderies. I also think technically 2d is harder to do becuase of everything you must keep up with to do it, you have to watch your volumes, show gravity, timing, good character design, line weight, varied timing, overlap all this is done by the artist, drawing must be top notch and cosistant inevery frame. 3d you can just concentrate on the acting . I think the cool thing with 3d is subtle acting you can get. 2d animators who have spent decades on building there craft are being told to forget about it. You have people who made great disney classics made them billions of dollars , and you send them out the door.
Thats where some anger comes from. Some say animation is animation no mater what the medium is. Others like me love 2d, I'll have my day job, but when I get home i go straight to my animation Disc. 3d also has its advantages as well, we know what they are. I'm just trying to give a 2d animators point of view




2d is not obsolete only in the eyes studio execs. When 3d production cost rise and they aren't seeing any return profits (bad movies)we'll see how many 3d studios will be left. 3d is going through the same thing 2d was in the early 90's. The industry works in cycles there are up times and down times.

The same happened a decade ago in the drafting world when CAD hit the architecture scene in a big way. Many ignored it and said "a computer never will replace me!"- not realizing that there were a ton of guys who saw the writing on the wall and went to night school to learn CAD. Once they learned it, they were ten times more productive and then the pink slips arrived.

Drawing to Cad is a natural progression like having robots build cars. 2d to 3d is different. Would a Tex Avery Toon feel the same in 3d? Could toy story feel the same in 2d? 2d and 3d still have the same production budget, and take about the same amount of time to make. 2d and 3d can co exist

BoydLake
12-31-2003, 03:10 AM
Originally posted by bentllama
the YOU was in plural form. you, my, his, hers, anyone's...

I am sorry, but I still stand my ground in firm belief that understanding traditional skills coupled with great vision are the foundation for great art.

I am certain many other 3D industry professionals share my opinion.


Then help me understand where I led you to believe I thought traditional skills were not important. I think we've been discussing two different things. You're defending foundational skills, and I'm addressing the practical execution of those skills.

Foundational skill or creative vision is where our talents lie and where our creative decisions are made. These are the skills that are the most valuable and that take the most effort to develop.

Practical skills are the skills we develop to execute our creative decisions. The can be pen and ink, pencil and paper, stone and chisel...you get the idea. Since these are technical skills, they can be learned easier, and therefore it's not all that painful to adapt in this area. This is where I come from when chiding 2d animators who balk at learning 3d skills. In our industry, if you don't learn to adapt in this area, then you're very soon left behind.

The foundational principles of visual storytelling are pretty much the same from medium to medium. However, your mastery of those principles is meaningless to your employer if you are unwilling or unable to execute those abilities with their chosen methods and technologies.

It's good to hear that Mr Grasso and others in Orlando have been building 3d skillsets. I'm sure they will eventually find they can express their creativity just as meaningfully in 3d as they did in 2d. Best of luck to them. I'm eager to see what they do.

BoydLake
12-31-2003, 03:29 AM
Originally posted by 2mellow
.... The only consistant studio with 3d films is Pixar.

Uh... I'd throw in Dreamworks/PDI. Shrek did after all take the academy award over Monsters Inc.. Antz was a successful film too.

People do forget that Pixar took about a decade of doing short films and developing software and a pipeline before doing Toy Story. Many assume they can throw a lot of money into a new studio and make it. Just ask the folks at Square. Sad thing is that after Final Fantasy TSW, Square shut it's doors before doing another film which could have made some money back and maybe by now even turned a profit.

You're right about money being behind the big move to 3d, but it's because of the depth and richness of a 3d image compared to 2d. I think the execs are sensing a shift in audience expectation which I think is probably correct. After films like Finding Nemo, Shrek, and Monsters Inc. it's hard to argue against that kind of image richness and depth. Audiences now will come to expect that from the animated films they go to see.

t-man152
12-31-2003, 03:34 AM
I feel so much for them. if I was one of them I would reach out to the others and try to make a project with our own money ( I know very risky) then try to sell it to a studio. if it's good they might sell it and Disney would want them back. I know this would be very difficult. but im sure that a company would love to hire a disney team. with their talents. dam disney as a kid I thought they were the greatest. I thought they had great values but more and more I have realized that Disney is a huge faceless corporation that is horible. this makes me think of something this guy scruge would do. you might be familiar with him. I think that if parents knew that Disney does things like this they would stay away for them.

LucentDreams
12-31-2003, 04:49 AM
Originally posted by Ed Bittner
What is Pixar thinking?? Rumor has it that they are opening a 2D animation division, so, like they don't know where to find REALLY talented people? If I was doing the hiring at Pixar, I would get in touch with everyone Disney shat on, and hire 'em NOW!
Ed

First of all the 2D animation rumor is an interesting one. at SIG they had a finding Nemo presentation where somone asked if Pixar would do a 2d film, Dylan Brown was the only one to respond at all saying that he was a 3D guy and hadn't really considered anything himself, and most the 2d guys he knew interested in directing were not thinking about 2d projects. Later when I and a few otherguys including the one who asked the question were taking to Dylan Brown downstairs in front of the maxon and pixar booths, some Big wig guy (from apple actually not pixar specifically) said that their official respnse was if they had a director and enough animators interested in a 2d project and a worthy script they definitely wouldn't toss the idea out. Leading a few of us who were 2d trained to say we would be available immediately when a 2d project starts.

As for pixar knowing who to hire, Brad bird wasn't the only one from Turner/Warner brothers animation pixar picked up after iron giant ;) They pay attention to the industry and know where the talent becoming available is.

As for the state of the industry, I'm far more positive about it now then I was months back. All the talk right now really seems to point at The triplettes and El Cid being strong contenders for osacar nominations, with Nemo being the obvious third (and probably the winner but wh knows) With Miyazaki winning last year, and My little world and Filmations Noturna coming out hopefuly next year, its really starting to look like animation success right now lies Pixar or independent/international 2D films, not a bad situation. And with films like the Triplettes of bellville, My little world and Nocturna we are seeing heavily stylized very differnt formats from the Disney style and format, thats a great thing to see happen, I love disney, but its nice to finally see some change, stuff dreamworks, disney and bluth never would go near.

Is it a great time for the 2d industry, by all means no, but its an interesting time, I just wish as a young new traditional animator that I"d be lucky enough to work on a project like my little world or nocturna which are such beautiful looking films truly original films, oddly enough they have a lot in common with pixar productions in every way except that they are traditional rather then 3D. Great direction, wonderful stories and fantastic designs, and they are ORIGINAL.

As for Roy leaving, well its scary times at disney thats for sure, for any that haven't do check out www.savedisney.com and sign Roy's petition http://www.petitiononline.com/roymagic/petition.html man its doubled since I signed back on the 23rd

Kion
12-31-2003, 05:09 AM
I'd throw in Dreamworks/PDI. Shrek did after all take the academy award over Monsters Inc.. Antz was a successful film too.


Ah you forget about Antz.

total Gross $90,757,863

cost of film $105 million

Like I said Pixar is the consistant 3d animation studio and everyone else is trying to copy there success

but it's because of the depth and richness of a 3d image compared to 2d

Lion King had lots depth too. So does stop motion. All the exec's (except for a few) care about is how much money its going to put in their pocket. The honest truth is that 2d stories have not been strong enough for want ever reason. Lilo and stitch(gross$145,794,338 cost $80mill) did great and brother bear continues to bring in good numbers. But everyone wants to say 2d is dead. 3d looks better than 2d, its deeper and richer. Thats a buch of crap. Kids and adults both love 2d and 3d, just look at the hotest cartoon on tv Sponge Bob. The exec's of these companies are trying to dictate to public that 3d is better you can hear in every interview they give, but its not true. Numbers from Lilo and Brother Bear show that. Everyone is trying to catch up with pixar. After 8 years we'll see how many 3d companies are left.

bentllama
12-31-2003, 05:16 AM
3d looks better than 2d, its deeper and richer.

tsk. tsk.

It is not the depth of the camera...but the depth of the character...

t-man152
12-31-2003, 05:39 AM
3d is newer than 2d so everyone wants it. the same thing hapened with plastic and metal. whenplastic arived they made as many things as possible out of plastic instead of metal. plastic things sold better. now if you have the choice for most things you will choose metal. just look at the homepage. chances are you saw the ad for boxx tech plastic vs metal case banner. 2d will come back in a few years. just hang on tight

BoydLake
12-31-2003, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by bentllama


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3d looks better than 2d, its deeper and richer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tsk. tsk.

It is not the depth of the camera...but the depth of the character...

So we're making up quotes now? Tsk. Tsk.

Yes. All other things being equal, I think audiences probably prefer a 3d rendered image. I think the Disney execs agree. That's not to say there will be no more 2d films of quality, but it means when maximizing your earning potential, you go with the one that also carries the added spectacle that 3d has right now.

bentllama
12-31-2003, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by Boyd Lake
So we're making up quotes now? Tsk. Tsk.

Yes. All other things being equal, I think audiences probably prefer a 3d rendered image. I think the Disney execs agree. That's not to say there will be no more 2d films of quality, but it means when maximizing your earning potential, you go with the one that also carries the added spectacle that 3d has right now.

who is making up quotes? look at 2mellow's post, it has that text in it. other people take the time to read your posts, why do you not take the time to read theirs?

there is more to a film than just the image.

3D == success

BoydLake
12-31-2003, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by bentllama
who is making up quotes? look at 2mellow's post, it has that text in it. other people take the time to read your posts, why do you not take the time to read theirs?

there is more to a film than just the image.

3D == success

I read his post.... If you were quoting him you quoted him waaaayyyyy out of context, since you left out a key phrase, so I assumed you were [mis]quoting me, putting words in my mouth.

So, Which is it?

And yes all other things (like the rest of the film) being equal I think audiences would prefer a 3d rendered image. Have I said that enough?

Tychoides
12-31-2003, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Boyd Lake

And yes all other things (like the rest of the film) being equal I think audiences would prefer a 3d rendered image.

good thing we are talking about animation here....:p

Fluckrat
12-31-2003, 01:24 PM
Gonna kick the hornet's nest here......

I just thought I'd chime in and say I agree with %90 of what Boyd is saying (his initial post was worded a little harshly though IMO) and it's refreshing to see a little more backbone in a discussion for once. There seems to be tendancy toward knee-jerk defence of "the art" around here...... Isn't anyone else sick of all this gooey, fan-boy rhetoric? I think it has now been well and truly established that "3D is just a tool" and "It's not the computer that makes the image, it's the artist" etc. etc. Surely it's a given.

I also think that (to my mind/eye at least) a *nice* 3d rendered image does look *richer* than a *nice* 2d one, and before anyone pounces on the vaguety of that statement, I'm talking in the context of the type of quality you could realisticly expect from an animated film. It's also my belief that children are faaaar more visually savvy than they're given credit for and you can't rule out a child sharing the same opinion (that 3d looks *richer* than 2d). They are also the most fickle and fad prone.... Now couple this with the additional important fact that they are the main target for Disney's output..... All I'm saying is that people shouldn't automatically dismiss this as a reason for Disney's moves (note - I am NOT saying Disney's behaviour is right). We all agree that it takes a good story to make a good film and we all know how staff and talent should be treated from a moral standpoint. Disney is now a big corporation, this is a fact, so you can't question it's motivation, the *primary* objective will always be money as long as you have shareholders, but you can question it's method.

Anyway, I too am sad that Disney is going to s*!t and I too love 2d animation (I went mad for The Emperor's New Groove, to the point where my friends now moan when I bring it up.... ) and I certainly don't want to see it go. But I don't think it will anyway and I think everyone should just let things run their course instead of filling up forums with this kind of panic-striken banter that's basically just hot air unless it's backed by some kind of action.

I think the key to all this is not the fact that "money is making it happen" etc. of course it is. A street artist needs money to feed himself, Disney needs money to feed it's shareholders and investors. It's the perceived thought that there'll be more money on the other side that's the real question. If you think that more kids will want to see a 3D animated film than a 2D one and you can't afford to do both, then make a 3D one, make them change their mind, or go bust. It's life, it's business, and it always will be. May I also be so bold as to take Walt Disney down from his pedestal for a second and say that he himself probably would've done it if he thought it was right. Again, there can be no objection to the motivation, only the method.

BZZZzzzzzzzz.......... wait.... what's that sound?....... HORNETS!!!

cerreto
12-31-2003, 04:51 PM
Maybe the reason behind the sucees and failure behind these lies heavily in the stories being told that seem to be missing in so many of the productions made just a thought, im not a disney fan so much myslef but would like to see them do more stuff like mulan etc


peace !

Kion
01-01-2004, 01:20 AM
I also think that (to my mind/eye at least) a *nice* 3d rendered image does look *richer* than a *nice* 2d one,

I would put a rough 2d animation drawing against any 3d image. 2d's beauty is in the line work. I want to see a computer replicate Rhapsody In Blue, or the Fire Bird sequence in Fantasia. Look at the line Quality of Al Hirschfeld thats what 2d does at its best. Hell! look at the animation done in Kill Bill a rough style very exspresive, you can see the rage of girl in drawing by the way line is drawn not only in the acting. Did you see that rough animation cut of Beauty and The Beast, that was some amazing stuff. When the Beast was angry the drawing got darker and rougher, when he was happy it was light and delicate. If Gleane Kean could have his way the film he was supposed to direct for Disney would have all been rough drawings sort of like the Pocahontas scene he did with charcoal. BUT disney execs wanted him to do it in 3d. I think its a crime. I feel this way becuase I have done booth 2d and 3d, and i understand both their strengths and weakness. To say that 3d has a richer image than 2d, I think is very wrong. I see the beauty in a 3d render, I see the beauty in an exspresive 2d line drawing.




bentllama-

You miss quoted me! I said "3d looks better than 2d, its deeper and richer. Thats a buch of crap"

bentllama
01-01-2004, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by 2mellow
bentllama-

You miss quoted me! I said "3d looks better than 2d, its deeper and richer. Thats a buch of crap"

actually I was in agreement with you. adding my own "bunch of crap" line with my own statement.

that is also the reason I did not use your name in the quote originally.

BoydLake
01-01-2004, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by 2mellow
Ah you forget about Antz.

total Gross $90,757,863

cost of film $105 million

Like I said Pixar is the consistant 3d animation studio and everyone else is trying to copy there success


That gross figure you report for Antz is for US receipts only.... if you include international box office receipts we're talking $181.4 million total box office for Antz. Then there's home video. I also found a report saying their prodcution budget was more along the lines of 60 million. Face it. Antz was a successful film, and with Shrek following you're crazy to ignore PDI on the list. Then there's also Blue Sky. I would toss them in as well.

Fasty
01-01-2004, 04:37 AM
I agree with everything 2mellow said.

Hand-drawn animation is kind of magical, especially when it's left kind of rough. To see drawings come to life for me just can't be beaten.

Check these out: http://www.gobelins.fr/galerie/animation/

Why can't 3D and 2D live happily along side one another? Why does one have to replace the other?

BoydLake
01-01-2004, 05:30 AM
Technically it's all 2d in the end. This 3d vs. 2d debate is getting pretty silly. No one said 2d was crap or that it couldn't be wonderful. No one said "3d looks better than 2d".

I did say that right now there are advantages to 3d which audiences seem to be responding to. Someone else twisted those comments into "3d looks better than 2d".

Obviously stylistically 2d can have great advantages over 3d. There are just some styles that will never translate to 3d.

When I talked about depth, I was addressing the spatial advantages the 3d medium has in creating a setting and characters for telling stories on film. You have the advantage of one more dimension . We're talking a huge spatial difference which is to audiences less of an abstraction than 2d.

You can now move a camera through a scene in 3d space, characters have depth and shade and are viewable from every angle in more than just a few colors as is the case with 2d characters in the disney style. When you render a shape you can choose to use millions of colors and have them track perfectly with the character in space. For millenia artists have been simulating shading through use of line and value, but 2d animators have always been forced to economize color and shading to be able to practically handle the frame load. With 3d that's not a problem of course.

3d has less soul than 2d? That's bunk too. It's all in the artist, not the medium they're using right? 3d is just another tool right? How could anyone believe that and then turn around and say 3d has less soul? Tools don't have soul, the artists weilding them do... or don't.

We didn't stop painting when we invented the camera, but that's not really analogous to going from 2d to 3d. Photographers don't usually build their subject matter from the ground up... they of course pose subjects or take opportunistic shots of existing real world scenes... framing composing and processing. 3d is still very much a medium in which artists can choose to be completely in control of their content and subject matter. So, comparing computers to cameras or 3d animation to photography is erroneous.

Tychoides
01-01-2004, 11:55 AM
first excuse my typing as english is only my third language.


Originally posted by Boyd Lake

And yes all other things (like the rest of the film) being equal I think audiences would prefer a 3d rendered image.

Anyway, this statement is unfounded. To my knowledge, no poll was made where we could clearly read that the audience preferred the "3d look" over hand drawn animation.

Moreover, 3d can take very different looks. Stating that the audience is aware of the intricate techniques of rendering or even cares is again, unfounded. 3d can imitate hand drawn animation, stop motion, or real live footage. Few in the audience realize that the Iron Giant was a CG character and that he is closer to Gollum than to Dumbo.

Stating that the audience would prefer 3d over 2d all things equal is an intellectual shortcut. Animated features are not scientific experiments where one factor can have a direct influence on the result (the satisfaction of the audience). Increasing one factor won't increase the audience's satisfaction if you kept the quality of all other factors stable. We are not dealing with homo economicus here.
Stating also that in a 3d animated feature , all other things can be equal to another 2d animated feature is also a misconception. They are two different animals , it would be like trying to equate stop motion animation and hand drawn animation. Is Nick Park's work of higher quality than Keane's or than the Pixar crew ? Equating art is useless because quality art can't be quantified.

But let's say the "audience favors a 3d rendered image over a hand drawn one all things being equaled" statement is true :

One indication that somehow the 3d look wins over 2d look "all other things being equal" would be the success of cg animated features.
It would be depreciating Pixar, PDI and Blue sky's work to state that their success can be also attributed to them using computers instead of crayons.
It seems the audience is smarter than one might think and that they still want good stories and solid timing in animated features,not just a "look". Final Fantasy and to a certain extent , Kaena, showed this.

This can only be a personal opinion, I firmly believe CG is doing well because the leaders right now are not only pushing the technology forward (or, to simplify, "polishing the 3d look") but most importantly producing quality work.
It's again an intellectual shortcut to think that this well-earned success is a result of the 3d characteristic, but an opinion one is entitled to, nonetheless.

Another indication that the audience could "favor the 3d look over 2d allthings being equaled" would be Disney's decision to convert their studios to producing 3d animated features only. The recent debacle at Disney's irection shows that these decisions are not the most popular. Maybe Disney's current direction firmly know that the audience favors the 3d look, and that 3d is the way to go.
That is, Maybe Disney's current direction knows exactly what the audience wants, an closing studios have everything to do with "we need to live in the 21st century and do 3d" and nothing to do with "We better outsource everything in cheaper studios in India, screw those expensive hand-drawn animators, im keeping my 6 figure salary."

Anyway, the "audience favors 3d look over 2d all things equal" statement doesn't hold ground in our current world. Japan has one of the biggest animation industry out there and competition is a A LOT fiercer in their country: Please the audience or die. If the 3d look bought an edge over 2d all things equal, the whole japanese animation industry would have gone 3d by now.

There is another field closer to home where the ONLY goal is to please the audience and where competition is so extreme that the fate of a project is decided in a few hours : broadcast. If the audience truly favored the 3d look somehow, all the satursday cartoons would have converted overnight.

oh, by the way,
As Mr Lake well said, comparing computers to camera and 3danimation to photography is erroneous. So let's not go over why comparing 2d animation with hand draft architecture and 3d animation with CAD is as equally if not more absurd.

PokeChop
01-01-2004, 10:01 PM
Will 2D animation be more appreciated when it's not around?

MartinGFoster
01-02-2004, 02:09 AM
Originally posted by Tychoides
To my knowledge, no poll was made where we could clearly read that the audience preferred the "3d look" over hand drawn animation.

I think "a poll" has been taken. It is a poll at the box office where international receipts have been considerably better for top quality 3d "Character animation" films versus top quality 2d films.

Of course, there are a few exceptions where 3d films have bombed badly, like "Final Fantasy" which wasn't character animation, but there have been very few successes with 2d, except perhaps "Lilo and Stitch" but that was small compared to the successful 3d movies.

So the receipts speak louder than anything and both Disney and Dreamworks have given up doing 2d or 2d characters with 3d backgrounds.

You mention Japan and it's probably true about their preference for 2d, but that's a small, niche market and is the exception rather than the rule.

Kion
01-02-2004, 03:04 AM
Of course, there are a few exceptions where 3d films have bombed badly, like "Final Fantasy" which wasn't character animation, but there have been very few successes with 2d, except perhaps "Lilo and Stitch" but that was small compared to the successful 3d movies.


Like I said this movement to 3d is largely money driven. Its like boy bands in music, every music label had one. Also compared to the last few years of animated films, 3d stories have been alot better than 2d films. I think Lilo and Stitch would have done much better if disney's track record recently had been stronger(Alantis, Emperos Groove , then Lilo ans Stich I think ppl lost the faith). Alot of people complain that 2d stories from big studios are always the same. So far aleast to me 3d stories have been interesting and different. My prediction with 2d is that it will go underground. There will be bunch of good independent films, things that we are not use to seeing, things that larger studios would not try, and through that 2d animation will be reborn. I hope. I'm looking foward to the Gorillaz movie, and Ghost in the Shell 2. There was something Don Bluth said about 2d animation, about keeping it interesting with design or something like that showing the audience something new, for now that is what 3d is doing, i also think thats way Lilo was succesful becuase it had new feel to it, different characters than what we are used to seeing and different character design form the norm also something that 3d is doing well with. Pixar for instance ,first a story about toys, then bugs, monsters, fish, super hero's. Blue sky prehistoric creatures and robots. I have always felt that 2d's strength was in its design and with in the last decade it has not been pushed as far as it could be. I wonder how the Sponge bob movie will do too?

I think "a poll" has been taken. It is a poll at the box office where international receipts have been considerably better for top quality 3d "Character animation" films versus top quality 2d films

I don't trust those polls according to them "The cat in the hat" and Paul Walker should be an oscar contender. They both have been slammed by almost everyone, but continues to make money. hmmm

insanepoly
01-02-2004, 03:42 AM
I think audiences just want to be entertained by good stories and appealing characters they can identify with and feel for. I don't think the average cinema goer watches a movie solely because its 2D or 3D.

Forgotten in all the arguments- the no. 1 reason for the success of CG movies like Shrek and Finding Nemo is that the stories and the characters were in themselves great. If people were going for CG, then Final Fantasy and Dinosaur should've been a great success.

IMO, the decline of Disney animation has more to do with Micheal Eisner then anything else. Somewhere along the line the movies just became vehicles for mechandising and the storylines formuliac.

The fact that each new movie by Miyazaki opens to great anticipation and major box-office receipts (at least here in asia) shown that the public appetite for classical animation has not dimmed one bit. And CG movies like Toy Story also does equally well. So surely there is space in this world for both 3D and 2D animations.

I like chicken and I like beef- but if they were badly cooked, I wouldn't eat neither one of them.

bluemagicuk
01-02-2004, 04:27 AM
I am certain 2d will never die. Only problem is if it looses popularity
with the students of this world it will result in less quality work being
produced in the future.
I think 3d has a long way to go and although it is amazing to
look at, I hope it will never replace stunning 2d work like ninja scrolls or
bambi for example.

Or princess mononoke. sheesh this list could easily be several pages long.

bentllama
01-02-2004, 06:32 AM
when it comes down to having to remove the spots from a bathing suit on a character because it will take too much money [read: time] to produce, it is just sad really...
penny pinching over the design of a character...:rolleyes:

sure, you do have to factor in production time and other major constraints [amount of cloth, complexity of hair, etc]...but simple spots? :surprised

*sigh*

Tychoides
01-02-2004, 06:56 AM
Originally posted by MartinGFoster
I think "a poll" has been taken. It is a poll at the box office where international receipts have been considerably better for top quality 3d "Character animation" films versus top quality 2d films.


I already stated in my previous post that I believe this isn't due to a 3d look but to the talent of the whole production team. One can of course think otherwise.


Finally on Japan it's easy to see it as a niche, or just something special. Let's not forget that Japan is still driving the animation industry in the East (that s a world in itself) and that they are the only country where an animated movie is their box office leader. It would be presumptuous to consider japanese animation "small"...
I think we can all learn from that , however weird we might think they are.
And as already stated, broadcast hasn' t gone all 3d yet, a market where the audience satisfaction is the only rule. And it's definately not small and definately not a niche.

I just believe the downfall of 2d we are experiencing isnt due to a simplistic argument like "3d looks better than 2d all things equal". Market driven productions, outsourcing, rising competition where once only one studio prevailed or outstanding rate of quality production done in 3d are all factors that have if not more influence than some mystical intrisic audience-pleasing quality inherent to 3d renders that 2d is lacking.

I wonder how hand-drawn animation will surface from all this. Blockbuster fast food entertainment will be done all in 3d now, with a "small niche" called Asia still hanging there. Maybe independant animation will grab the hand-drawn tradition, finally free of the one-studio model.
Or maybe will it find its place along stop motion, where some studios like aardman delivers outstanding work from time to time, showing all the new kids that even an old monkey can teach tem new tricks.


good discussion in 'ere :) keep it up :thumbsup:

edit : grumble /spelling

MartinGFoster
01-02-2004, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by the_hand

Forgotten in all the arguments- the no. 1 reason for the success of CG movies like Shrek and Finding Nemo is that the stories and the characters were in themselves great. If people were going for CG, then Final Fantasy and Dinosaur should've been a great success.

There's a certain novelty factor with 3d right now. Let's be specific and talk about character animated full CG films. Not hybrid 3d/live action like "Dinosaur" and attempts at realistic humans like "Final Fantasy". People aren't as impressed by that.

Call it fashion or fad, but that's the way it is. Each Pixar and PDI movie has raised the standard on rich visuals so they become a historical event when they realease them. So Shrek and Finding Nemo did well because they were good movies AND 3d. Personally, I don't think "Finding Nemo" was a great story, it was merely good. But, if those films were 2d they wouldn't have done a tiny fraction of what they did. They would just be cartoons and you don't need a big screen to enjoy a cartoon.

I think Disney and Dreamworks have released some great 2d / quasi 2d films recently like "Lilo", "Emporer's New Groove", "Spirit", "Iron Giant". Hey, I bought them all on DVD but quite a few of them did horribly at the box office.

For example, "The Emperor's New Groove" was fantastic -- not the usual Disney formula -- but it did only marginal at the Box office. For story and characters I think it compares well to "Shrek" and much better than "Nemo". If it was 3d I think it would have been a smash hit.

So if you are in a money making business how long can you keep making movies that people won't pay to see at the cinema? You will go out of business if you keep making failures.

I don't have anything against 2d and if people in Asia love it then great. They can keep making them there and make a profit too, but that's not working for western cinema right now. So 3d is the way to go right now. Maybe if people get tired of that then we'll start doing cartoon rendered 3d just to keep it interesting later.

insanepoly
01-02-2004, 07:07 AM
Japan's got a population size of 130 million people- I wouldn't exactly call it a niche market. Besides animation also does not suffer the prejudice of being looked upon as kiddy entertainment over there as it is in other places.

Kion
01-02-2004, 08:04 AM
So Shrek and Finding Nemo did well because they were good movies AND 3d. Personally, I don't think "Finding Nemo" was a great story, it was merely good. But, if those films were 2d they wouldn't have done a tiny fraction of what they did. They would just be cartoons and you don't need a big screen to enjoy a cartoon.

I think you hit on something interesting here. I think 3d animation can save all types of animation. The thing that makes Pixar and PDI films so appealing is that they aren't just for children. Half of those tickets sold were for adults, teens, college kids. 2d has this scar of being just for children here in the US. 3d animation is I think is breaking boundaries, the movie ticket sales show that. 2d had a simular success with that when Lion King came out everyone I know say that movie. Also for 2d animation , television animation is going very strong, there are more 2d animated shows on tv noe than ever before, most of the work is shipped over seas, but thats another descussion

The Emperor's New Groove" was fantastic -- not the usual Disney formula -- but it did only marginal at the Box office. For story and characters I think it compares well to "Shrek" and much better than "Nemo". If it was 3d I think it would have been a smash hit.

I don't know, I loved it, I saw it in theatre. I would't call a film that made 90 million domestically a flop. The advertising sucked. I went to the movie expecting one thing and it was totally different, I was happy though. It made its money back. I would count it as being Successful. 2d flopped films, Treasure Planet, Titan AE(I love Iron Giant to much to call it a flop). 3d has had there share we know what they are.

My question is that none of these 2d films are doing horrible from Disney atleast, why just kill it off? After investing so much time and money in training and hiring building studios, then just kill it. They did the same thing with Dinosaur, Built up this great 3d company then when a movie flops they just, kill it.

There are tons of Live action films that cost way more and do much worse at the box office (pearl harbor) but no one is talking about the end of live action film.

Tychoides
01-02-2004, 08:06 AM
I find it difficult to "imagine" a 2d nemo or a 3d emperor's new groove. We are talking changing an entire production process here.
But Maybe you re right, if nemo had been done in 2d it wouldn t have done as well. In the same line of thinking, do you believe Lilo and Stitch would have done better if it was in 3d ? Or let's go all the way : do you believe the Lion King or Snow White would have done better at the box office if they were remade in 3d ?

Again trying to explain the failure or the success of a movie at the box office because of the presence of 3d in it is an oversimplification.

MartinGFoster nailed it right by calling 3d a fashion. Because the audience is used to see 3d animated features with good stories (thank you pixar) it's tempting to think that 3d is the magic ingredient. But it s jut a fashion, feed the audience crap and they won't smile even if there's icing on it.

LucentDreams
01-02-2004, 10:26 AM
Judging from kids reaction to the 3D zazzoo on the lion king DVD hate to say that one probably would have done as well if it were done in 3d with todays technology.

There were some recent brilliant 2D pieces that didn't get the attention they deserved, Emperor's new Groove, Iron Giant, The only reason those two did so poorly in theatres, has absolutely nothing to do with the films themselves, its all about marketing, if Emperor's new groove had the marketing that nemo had, it would have been a huge hit. Spirited away was lucky it ever made it to american theatres after Miyazaki's huge disappointment in Miramax's handling on the north american mononoke theatrical release, even spirited away's theatrical release did far worse then it should have, again disney just isn't pushing it like they do some of their other stuff.

I don't know anyone whose seen Iron giant who didn't think it was one of the best animated films they've seen, and yet most people don't even know when it came out in theatres or remember it doing a theatre run at all. Heck I never saw a trailer for it before the movie came out, only reason I knew aything about it was because I was in charge of promotional media at the movie theatree Iworked at and had to deal with the posters and keychains we were given, heck even the painted style of the poster never suggested it was an animated film. Of course in terms of iron giant its was a destined fate just continuing from Turner/warner bros Cat's Don't Dance, another one of the best animated films I"ve ever seen myself, of which most people have never even heard of let alone seen.

As for the comparison of the Asian market to the North american market its just stupid. In Asia, particularily Japan, animations are a bigger market then live action films, and directors of animated films are names recognised in most households like Spielberg or Woody Allen. Heck, you'd be surprised how many cgartists don't know who I mean when I say Pete Docter, Brad Bird, Chuck Jones, Wolfgang Reitherman, Wilfred Jackson, Ron Clements, John Musker, Lasseter seams to be one of few whose name ever gets recognised, and I think that has more to do with his work in promotin pixar and such then as the director of Toy story, or actually directing and animating the early pixar shorts.

As well Its been mentioned that they do a full range including things that appeal more to adults and such, well disney's been trying to appeal to older people particularily teens, and its only hurt them even more, Disney's best move would be to focus on kids and family again and forget teens imo.

As for animation in general though, I wouldn't mind seeing stuff aimed towards more mature audiences, I don't mean hentai and such, but just more mature subject matter, only problem is that anytime someone does something like that it fails. Ever heard of any of the following, Undergrads, Mission Hill, Family Guy, Aeon Flux, mature cartoons all seem to last a single season Family guy is supposedly going to be coming back, but its a plain and simple fact that the cartoons don't become popular until they are already done their original run and are no longer in production. Is that the studios faults? Well to a ppoint again, lack of marketing doesn't help a cartoon get seen just like the issue wiht features, but also people generally think cartooons are for kids, it isnt till the word of mouth of those like myself who watch any cartoon gets around to others that it catches on. Heck Ren and Stimpy isn't doing nearly as well as they expected it too, even though its more mature now then it was allowed to be in the original series.

CourtJester
01-03-2004, 05:10 AM
Best quote I've seen on the matter so far:

Disney has apparently decided it will be their last 2-D animation feature. Donít know why. The problem isnít the 2-D animation, but the 2-D characters, plots and songs. -- Mark Steyn

t-man152
01-03-2004, 06:07 AM
hey I have a question. where does disney produce their cartoons such as reecess and all those other disney cartoons (not feature film)

Wes_Brown
01-03-2004, 07:44 AM
Anyone remember the trailer for Nemo?
Long... and very interesting

What about Ice Age?
Long... and very interesting

What about treasure planet?
Well...I really don't remember.

Sinbad?
Well...I really don't remember.

It seems the trailers and teasers for the recent 3d films have been much longer than the 2d ones and therefore they hold your interest more because of it. I think many good 2d movies get passed over because of questionable marketing...sad.

Interest = Buzz = Patronage...most of the time :)

bentllama
01-03-2004, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by The_Liberator
Anyone remember the trailer for Nemo?
Long... and very interesting

What about Ice Age?
Long... and very interesting

What about treasure planet?
Well...I really don't remember.

Sinbad?
Well...I really don't remember.

It seems the trailers and teasers for the recent 3d films have been much longer than the 2d ones and therefore they hold your interest more because of it. I think many good 2d movies get passed over because of questionable marketing...sad.

Interest = Buzz = Patronage...most of the time :)

not entirely a good analogy...

the marketing budget for Nemo and Ice age was Godzilla in size compared to the budgets of the other two.

Kion
01-03-2004, 09:08 AM
hey I have a question. where does disney produce their cartoons such as reecess and all those other disney cartoons (not feature film)

All the preproduction work is done here in the us the, rest of the animation is shipped overseas in asia. I think Tarzan is done here at Tom T animation. I'm not sure.


I just finished looking flipping some pages of 2d animation on a personal project I'm working on. I love 2d

Fasty
01-03-2004, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by The_Liberator


Sinbad?
Well...I really don't remember.



WHAT?? You can't remember that work of creative genius? Remember, Brad Pitt and that other woman? I can see it now... the horror, the horror

halo
01-03-2004, 12:31 PM
im not sure 2d is a tired format, its just that disney has tired the format out...Disneys name is synominous with cell animation, but its also synominous with repetative and formulaic plot lines and characters, a repetative style, exploitative marketing and sales schemes and lack of foresight in their ideas. Lets face it, they are the macdonalds and ford of 2d cell.

I think the employees perhaps should have seen this coming, but perhaps they were holding on with that job for life mentality...which anyone with their thinking cap on knows is well and truly over. Didnt any alarm bells ring when they were shaving the jobs off beforehand....?

Wes_Brown
01-03-2004, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by bentllama
not entirely a good analogy...

the marketing budget for Nemo and Ice age was Godzilla in size compared to the budgets of the other two.

That's my point exactly! :)

LucentDreams
01-03-2004, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by CourtJester
Best quote I've seen on the matter so far:

Disney has apparently decided it will be their last 2-D animation feature. Donít know why. The problem isnít the 2-D animation, but the 2-D characters, plots and songs. -- Mark Steyn

I dont' think so, anyone notice disney hasn't had a really successful film sine they cut out the songs? Cutting out the songs may make you guys happy, but lets face it kids do likethe songs, and it also doesn't help disney's money making soundtrack's,, Heck evenin terms of Oscars disney was better off when they were doing musical's, look how many oscars an nominations they got from oliver and company onwards.

As for the characters, well thats partially true, But Seriously Empror's new groove's Characters were equal to most any pixar character in terms of design and appeal, one problem is the literature based characters, I mean in all honesty they did some great character development between Jim and John in Treasure planet, (thats all they did right in that film though)

I think its mainly in their plot that the problem lies, which is prettybad considering three of the recent ones have been based on majour novels, maybe thats the problem, Lilo and Stitch and Emperor's new groove were definitely beter recent productions and those two were far more original its definitely more than a coincedence

PhilOsirus
01-04-2004, 05:41 PM
3D IS replacing 2D animation. You can't compare paint and photography to 2D and 3D animation. We are talking about an industry, not an artistic tool. Hence what survives is what will save time, offer good results, cost less, need less people, etc. 2D means you have to draw everything you want to be seen. 3D can let the computer take care of a lot of variables, which is actually only starting now to really appear in 3D animation (such as good crowd simulators). 3D is more economicly viable than 2D because it can do so much more. From fooling people into believing something is real to representing a cute little character for a kid's show. You can even make it look like 2D animation.

As much as I like 2D animation I doubt it will survive out as an industry other than in the underground scene (mainly in the case of animation, the only underground scene has been Japan's animated movies, too bad no one else has been exploring animation like they have).

2D is an important aspect of art to learn in the animation industry, but don't expect to work on 2D movies later on.

Kion
01-06-2004, 11:57 PM
Hence what survives is what will save time, offer good results, cost less, need less people, etc. 2D means you have to draw everything you want to be seen. 3D can let the computer take care of a lot of variables, which is actually only starting now to really appear in 3D animation (such as good crowd simulators). . From fooling people into believing something is real to representing a cute little character for a kid's show. You can even make it look like 2D animation.


3d and 2d cost about the same to produce, for every person in 2d, you need a person, or computer in 3d, it balances off the cost. They both take about the same amount of time to produce. In some cases 2d is cheaper, which is why you don't see alot of 3d tv shows(that could change). 2d you can animate limited and it looks stylish(dexter, powerpuffgirls). Limited 3d animation hmm i don't know. In 2d I can hold a drawing for a few frames, as long as the pose is strong the character will still be alive, in 3d if i let a character hold a pose with no movement it looks dead. Lassiters lecture notes"always keep the character moving even just little bit"

"3D is more economicly viable than 2D because it can do so much more"

I do agree, becuase of medical things you can do with 3d, recreating crime scenes. etc.

"You can even make it look like 2D animation"

Show me a 3d program that gives me the extreme squash and stretch from a tex avery cartoon and the line quality of Virgil Partch and doesn't look like someone printed out a 3d model and traced over it with a marker and I will put down my pencil forever.

JasonOsipa
01-07-2004, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by Phil "Osirus"
3D IS replacing 2D animation. You can't compare paint and photography to 2D and 3D animation. We are talking about an industry, not an artistic tool. Hence what survives is what will save time, offer good results, cost less, need less people, etc.

You're not wrong, but you're not right, either.

3D bought Toy Story an opening weekend. 3D bought Antz an opening weekend (Can anyone but Pixar do it?), and 3D bought Final Fantasy an opening weekend (Can they pull all that off realistically?)
-note the varying success

None of this had to do with cost or better tools. 3D movies are taking as long as 2D movies. They're not cheaper, either, and they need just as many people. (modelers, texturers, lighters and TDs... that's more and more that wasn't there before) Also, currently, 3D cannot move characters around with really fluid gusto the way a good artist can draw one moving around. (yet!)
The reason 3D films are doing better, is that on whole, they are written so much better than 2d films of late. Further to that, since they have succeeded, their successors get the marketing bucks to PUSH them harder, too. It's like the smart-kid in the class being handed the right answers before the test. He doesn't need'em, but they definitely buy him guarantee on that A!
As 2D films have stopped being as guaranteed, their marketing has been dropped, too, amplifying it and speeding this whole process up.

Anyways. 2D's not gone, it's on hiatus. I'd bet a million, in a few years, some 2D film is going to come out and SHATTER the contemporary 3D of the time -not technically, but with story. GUARANEE it. All this will herald the beginning of a new age of Classical animation. I can see it now.

(BTW, I'm a 3d-guy, not an angry misplaced 2d animator, which I can see it looks like reading this over)

PhilOsirus
01-07-2004, 12:27 AM
in a few years, some 2D film is going to come out and SHATTER the contemporary 3D of the time -not technically, but with story.

Well I for one completely doubt it. It's like saying that in a few years from now, a movie with realistic characters in 3D like FF will SHATTER the contemporary movie scene, not technically, but with a story. In my view it doesn't make much sense, since said story will be directly sent to a studio that works in 3D, like Pixar. If it is not, then it will go to a smaller, studio, hence one with less coverage, one with less potential to be a hit, less less less, etc.

My point was that it will be more profitable for one to learn 3D than 2D animation, due to its varied use, and the avarage 3D artist has a great grasp of 2D anyway. If you want to take a gigantic risk, go ahead, but if you hope to find some work, aim for 3D primarly. That's how I see it.

gnomonguru
01-08-2004, 09:03 PM
I grew up knowing I wanted to do 2d animation but changed to 3d after seeing that jobs in 2d were becoming harder to get, I feel sad about the great animators losing there jobs when its not even their fault. I mean the heads of Disney are just producing films that are using formulas that have worked for them in the past and are not pushing the advances of animation anymore. Its not the animators that are bringing the downfall of Disney its the heads who have no creative gas left and are getting rid of animators to try and keep a profit. Good luck to all those who are in search for new jobs just keep puching and you will succeed:buttrock: :thumbsup:

CGTalk Moderation
01-17-2006, 01:00 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.