CGTalk - AWN: It's Official. Disney Brings Back 2D

switchblade327

07-25-2006, 05:58 PM

I never understood why they got rid of the animation group. I could understand downsizing it, but ridding themselves of it? That is like someone who sells folwers to sell their gardens.

Disney was convinced that nobody wanted to see 2d movies anymore. But like Ms Brisby said, Pixar was doing great stories while Disney was designing by committee, and from the sounds of things, a committee of suits; not artists. And it's always easier to blame someone or something else (traditional animation, even as hand-drawn anime was exploding in popularity here in the states) then to admit that they just weren't making compelling movies anymore.

Anyway, this is fantastic news and I have no doubt there's enough room for 2d, 3d and stop motion to all peacefully co-exist.

Per-Anders

07-25-2006, 06:40 PM

Well indeed this was posted a couple of days ago http://www.laughingplace.com/News-ID510530.asp which would seem to indicate that Lasseter is the main driving force behind this shift in Disney corporate culture.
(http://www.laughingplace.com/News-ID510530.asp)

pearson

07-25-2006, 09:00 PM

Disney was convinced that nobody wanted to see 2d movies anymore.Actually it was one man who needed a scapegoat and decided 2D was it: Micheal Eisner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Eisner)

Now that he is gone and Iger supports Lasseter shaking things up, a new golden age at Disney looks to be just around the corner. :thumbsup:

Breinmeester

07-25-2006, 09:03 PM

Actually they pitched it as a 2D film. It's always been their plan to do it handdrawn.

Pixar bought up a lot of the drawing tables when Eisner was selling, so some of the instruments are back in the company.

James Baxter and his studio have been working on the 2D segments for 'Enchanted'.

After the Merger Lasseter and Catmull told their directors that there will be a working enviroment installed where they can come up with their on films and do it in the way they see fits the story best.

I believe some 2D shorts are already in production. They also still have some undistributed 2D shorts laying around ('Destino', 'Lorenzo', 'Matchstick Girl').

So, off course, 2D isn't dead. But I do believe 2D will have to use some CG elements that the audience have come to expect from animation (something like: 3D cameras, very 'on model' characters, detail, texture). It will also have to add something that 3D doesn't have for it to be a success (something like: style, graphical approach, texture from traditional materials). I'm thinking along the lines of something between traditional handdrawn animation and what Glen Keane is doing for 'Rapunzel Unbraided'.

And off course the story will have to be very good. I'm not convinced yet a story fitting the traditional Disney fairytale plot will do the trick, but let's see what they'll make of it....

BigJay

07-25-2006, 09:44 PM

Miyazaki's work it doesn't have even as much 3d fx as tarzan and is still loved. If the story is good I would watch another aladdin style or little mermaid style animated movie any day.

Although I should add that Spirit and Tarzan used a mix of 2d on 3d polys to get more life out of the art which I thought was cool. I hope with the loss of the 2d department they didn't loose all that software they had developed.

Good news for sure

Papa Lazarou

07-25-2006, 11:13 PM

I wonder if they'd ever consider 2d again at Dreamworks. All of their 2d films were flops to one degree or another, yet quality wise I thought they were no worse than their successful 3d films. What makes Sharktale gross more than any of their 2d 'tradigital' films(Prince of Egypt, Road to Eldorado, Spirit:Stallion of the Cimarron, Sinbad)? Was it that much of a better story?

I suspect that the consistant high quality of Pixar's films led to audiences' being more willing to see a 3d film than a 2d. I think that a decade's worth of average to mediocre 2d films began to have an effect on their profit potential. Towards the end, even the better quality 2d films had a tough time matching the kind of profits that inferior 2d films made in the mid-90s. The other thing that hurt was weak advertising.

It probably helps that 2d had to go away for a while till people start to miss it. When Disney make their grand come back to hand-drawn animation with a film from the directors of The Little Mermaid and Aladdin and a strong advertising campaign, they should be able to position it to do better than 2d has done for a long time.

cresshead

07-25-2006, 11:30 PM

i'd like to see some cel shade rendered 3d films from disney as well as 2d and the cgi 3d films..

steve g

havokzprodigy

07-25-2006, 11:48 PM

YES!!!

I hope it is just as successful as the 3d movies. They just need a story the quality of Pixars and there is no reason it shouldn't do good.

vangaans

07-26-2006, 12:54 AM

Best news i've heard in a long time....but please, please, please.....no more musicals!

My family and I sat down to watch Corpse Bride recently and as soon as they started singing, my 18 and 14 year old sons both got up and went and did something else. I tried to get them to stay but it was just too annoying for them. As it was my wife and I just fast forwarded through the musical numbers and thoroughly enjoyed the rest of the film. :)

Slurry

07-26-2006, 01:00 AM

Ya, I used to be really annoyed with the musical bits when I was younger too. Teenage boys just won't like that stuff. Not cool enough. Haha!

But as I got older, I really started to appreciate the music as a device to forward the story using exposition, without it being a boring exposition.

I think if music makes it better, use it. It shouldn't be a rule one way or the other. Formulaic tendancies can hinder the creative process.

Art

vilen13

07-26-2006, 01:41 AM

Hoorraaayyy!!:bounce:

mmkelly011881

07-26-2006, 02:00 AM

I wonder if they'd ever consider 2d again at Dreamworks. All of their 2d films were flops to one degree or another, yet quality wise I thought they were no worse than their successful 3d films. What makes Sharktale gross more than any of their 2d 'tradigital' films(Prince of Egypt, Road to Eldorado, Spirit:Stallion of the Cimarron, Sinbad)? Was it that much of a better story?

i dunno but Prince of Egypt is one of my alltime favorite movies... partially because of the music yes.. but also fantastic animation, storytelling, cinematography and balance... i dont think anything was used "too much" in that movie... yes, they used a "star studded cast" but it wasnt over the top.. no voice really redirected the character design or acting more than it should... 3d was used gracefully for small parts and accent points... (parting of the red sea!)

back to disney tho... YAY!!!

i remember watching the credits of Aladdin with my sisters and realizing that people could do THAT for a living... and that i knew what i wanted to do with my life at the age of 11

i remember hearing about the end of disney 2d animation after spending 4 years working towards getting my figure drawing, composition, line and layout down to where i felt comfortable attempting complex animation

i love 3d animated movies... they are what i want to do... but i still love the freedom and beauty a great "traditional" animator can make with a pencil and i hope that my studies of both will help make me a better animator

vangaans

07-26-2006, 05:35 AM

Hi Art

I think if music makes it better, use it. It shouldn't be a rule one way or the other. Formulaic tendancies can hinder the creative process.

Totally agree! It's just that the formula at Disney in the past has tended to be: 2D = Musical

I'm interested. Do a lot of people still like musicals?

cheers
Paul

Papa Lazarou

07-26-2006, 12:39 PM

I believe some 2D shorts are already in production. They also still have some undistributed 2D shorts laying around ('Destino', 'Lorenzo', 'Matchstick Girl').

It's interesting that you bring these up. I believe that along with the completed short "One by one" they were to be part of the next Fantasia(which was cancelled). They must've had about half the film there. I wonder if they'll pick it up where it was left off now. Since they seem to be adopting the Pixar model of using shorts to develop talent and technology, maybe in a few years they'll be able to put something together.

Pavlovich

07-26-2006, 02:23 PM

Totally agree! It's just that the formula at Disney in the past has tended to be: 2D = Musical

I'm interested. Do a lot of people still like musicals?

cheers
Paul

i remember really liking aladdin when i was a kid...musicals song and dance sequences and all. however, there was a copy of the lion king laying around a while ago and i tried to watch it after...hell, 10 years? I ended up shutting it off after the third musical number (which was like, 15 minutes into the GD film...)

Bliz

07-26-2006, 03:07 PM

This is good news.

I thought Lilo and Stitch was a great movie. And even though Iron Giant isn't Disney, it's a testiment to how good a 2D film can be.

I think 2D films are just as respected as 3D films but I think they suffer at the box office because a certain percentage of parents think "my kids can watch 2D cartoons on TV, why do I need to pay for cinema tickets to see another one?" I think their is a false but popular conception that 2D films are inherently 'cheaper' to make and so aren't worth as much of an 'event' as a 3D film.

aaraaf

07-26-2006, 08:06 PM

Bliz, Iron Giant is a Brad Bird film. Disney has him now with Pixar! I just realized this a day or so ago! Since he always intended The Incredibles to be 2D, how long until he's helming one?

I am SOOOOO excited!

As for Miyazaki (I absolutely LOVE his movies, so don't take it the wrong way...) I always thought it was interesting that Disney was beat up for their "formula" by many people who over look his. Just from an opening shot you know it's a Miyazaki film, much like older Disney movies are obviously Disney.

And I think Prince of Egypt is the best film to come out of Dreamworks animation. Much more robust than any of their 3D efforts (which I've enjoyed). It's too bad they went such a different direction with their 2D follow ups. They almost had themselves a niche in the American market as the "serious" animation house.

TimAnderson

07-26-2006, 09:06 PM

I think the important thing to point out here is that John Lasseter is not just arbitrarily reviving hand-drawn 2D animation; rather, he seems to be leaving it up to those helming the films to make the choice as to which medium would best present the story they wish to tell. Neither medium is necessarily superior to the other on the whole, but certain stories would definitely benefit from hand-drawn animation, where others would be better in CG. I am so glad that Lasseter has such a story-telling based vision, and that he sees the media of animation as tools that must be applied correctly to be successful.

Vive le Lasseter!

jewalker

07-26-2006, 10:21 PM

Hi Art

Totally agree! It's just that the formula at Disney in the past has tended to be: 2D = Musical

I'm interested. Do a lot of people still like musicals?

cheers
Paul

There have been a couple live action musicals recently that have done well, Moulin Rouge, Chicago, and Phantom of the Opera. CG films seem to have stayed away from being musicals.

Njen

07-27-2006, 12:56 AM

There have been a couple live action musicals recently that have done well, Moulin Rouge, Chicago, and Phantom of the Opera. CG films seem to have stayed away from being musicals.

Not for much longer - Happy Feet.

BillB

07-27-2006, 01:14 AM

And I think Prince of Egypt is the best film to come out of Dreamworks animation. One of the best films to come out of anywhere! It was very disappointing as you say to see them slide after that. Shark Tale out-grossing POE is a crime :(
It will be *very* interesting to see if the common man still wants to see 2D films. Let's hope so!

Breinmeester

07-27-2006, 08:53 AM

CG films seem to have stayed away from being musicals.

It's not just singing characters, which actually can be very fun if done right, it's more the cliché of using music to tell parts of the story. When I saw 'Over the Hedge' the other day there went a big bored sigh through the theatre when that sad song started playing.
I think it's a weak storytelling strategy and it holds the pacing of the film back. In a lot of good animation features there's usually some song that's the movie's weak spot.

mlanser

07-27-2006, 08:56 AM

Best news i've heard in a long time....but please, please, please.....no more musicals!

You're so right. I hated that when they start singing around even when i was a little boy. Always wanted the Story to go on...:bounce:

But that's definitely good News. Hope they don't mess it up!

Fahrija

07-27-2006, 12:55 PM

2D is a great medium and I´m very happy it´s back again - I so much agree - It was the storytelling and those terrible musical sequences which made the disney-films insufferable.

.

Papa Lazarou

07-27-2006, 01:24 PM

I wasn't a fan of the musicals either, but for whatever reason, most of Disney's biggest animated flops were non-musicals. Treasure Planet, Atlantis, The Black Cauldron.

Iysun

07-27-2006, 01:31 PM

Im just curious, did Disney announce at on time that they were no longer going to be doing 2d animations?

Anyways I am glad to thats not the case.

jeremybirn

07-27-2006, 01:50 PM

Im just curious, did Disney announce at on time that they were no longer going to be doing 2d animations?

Yes. In 2004 they promoted "Home on the Range" as "Disney's last hand-drawn film." They closed their Florida animation studios, the studio that made Lilo & Stitch, so that they could focus entirely on 3D, and closed some smaller studios in other countries that were making sequels. Here are some articles:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2279383,00.html
http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2005/07/27/Arts/disneyanimation050727.html

-jeremy

Iysun

07-27-2006, 03:50 PM

ah thanks for the info, I remember hearing about all the layoffs but I didn't know they were planning on quiting 2d all togather, glad to see they (probably the suits) came back to their senses.

Breinmeester

07-27-2006, 07:39 PM

No, those suits were sacked and people with sense were bought in. Where have you been, man??

jewalker

07-27-2006, 11:06 PM

Are people really that against musicals? I mean, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Peter Pan, and Beauty and the Beast were all musicals. There was a time when most live action movies were musicals also. Do people just remember those older movies with nostalgia, and they no longer work with modern movies? I really enjoyed the songs sung in Aladdin and the Lion King. I even liked one or two of the songs in Tarzan, Hercules, and The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

vangaans

07-28-2006, 12:42 AM

Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoy music in films. It's just the parts where they stop the flow of the story, all join arms and start singing the storyline that spoils it for me. When I watch a film I want to be drawn in, picked up and carried along from start to finish. Like a good Pixar film. As an animator I keep trying to study the animation in Monsters Inc. But I find it impossible. I can be so determined to watch, pause and study key animation moments. But every single time I end up just watching the movie! It keeps drawing me in! This doesn't happen with musicals. As soon as a musical number starts up I'm ejected from the story and have to sit and wait patiently for my re-entry point.

Re. Are people really that against musicals? I mean, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Peter Pan, and Beauty and the Beast were all musicals. There was a time when most live action movies were musicals also. Do people just remember those older movies with nostalgia, and they no longer work with modern movies? I really enjoyed the songs sung in Aladdin and the Lion King. I even liked one or two of the songs in Tarzan, Hercules, and The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

I have 90% of these films in my collection and appreciate them all. Not because they are musicals, but because of the masterful animation, character design, animated effects and backdrops. Two of my favourite animated Disney films are Lion King and Tarzan. These two films are the only two musicals that don't interrupt the flow of the story for me. Perhaps it's the absolute mastery of 2D animation that keeps me in there, or perhaps it's the quality of the music, either way these are the only two that keep me in.

There have been a couple live action musicals recently that have done well, Moulin Rouge, Chicago, and Phantom of the Opera.

Haven't seen any of these films, because I knew in advance that they were going to be musicals. :thumbsup:

On the topic of animation mastery, I can't wait to see what Glen Keane does with Rapunzel. :)

aaraaf

07-28-2006, 03:00 AM

Ya know... bringing up Baz Lurhman... there were talks about Disney trying to get him to direct a 2D musical flick. What's he up to anyway?

The musicals are incredible when the music's good. It's funny, everyone brings up the show stopping for music and I think one of the worst offenders was the end of Toy Story2... I just wasn't ready for it when it happened.

The Tarzan sequences are brilliant... more montage, and they got more in-depth character development in those particular 5-6 minutes of that movie than most 2 hour art house films! I just think that it's a great, great film. NOW, will Glen Keane be going back and doing 2d after Repunzel? THAT I've got to know! :thumbsup:

chow-mein

07-28-2006, 03:51 AM

I wasn't a fan of the musicals either, but for whatever reason, most of Disney's biggest animated flops were non-musicals. Treasure Planet, Atlantis, The Black Cauldron.

True, yet Treasure Planet, Atlantis and The Black Cauldron were geared towards a slightly older audience. If I am not mistaken, all three had a PG rating instead of the usual G for Disney animated features.

Breinmeester

07-28-2006, 02:40 PM

Ya know... bringing up Baz Lurhman... there were talks about Disney trying to get him to direct a 2D musical flick.

Now that would be a smart move, because his modern musicals work far better in this day and age.

'The Lion King' is my favourite Disney film because it has the right story pace over the whole film and the music suits the film and doesn't hold the pace of the story back. But the weakest point in the film is the musical sequence where young Simba and Nala sing their thing with some show ballet of animals. It just doesn't suit the weight of the rest of the film and I think the main points that sequence tries to communicate could've been done in a better way. It would be far harder to make it work, but it would be far better too.

This is a nice discussion we've got going here. What do you guys think about the 'comeback' of 2D? Do you think it should bring in something extra, relative to the pre-3D animated features? Do you think it should adapt to the 3D minded audience of today (and maybe use CG elements)? Or maybe be as flat as can be as a counterwave and use its medium to bring something 3D can't (kind of like the very promissing 'Brendan and the Secret of Kells' currently in production)?

Off course it's all about story, but I'm sure even 'The Lion King' would have a hard time drawing people into the theatre in this 3D age.

aaraaf

07-28-2006, 03:12 PM

I think it should be different than 3D... more painterly and more sketchy. I miss the old xeroxed cels because they had a tendency to copy parts of the rough sketching as well. I think that Jungle Book and Pooh really are charming because of this.

I would like to see less 3D in these. It worked well in Lilo and Stitch but not so well in most of the others... too often it feels out of place, a la Titan AE, Beuty and the Beast... But in Tarzan the technique is amazing. (I've used that work to describe that film before... :) ). I guess that there's just no reason to use it as just to use it... it's not breathtaking in and of itself like it once was. It's going to have to serve it's purpose and be used as a last resort.

I also think Lion King would have no problem finding an audience today. It speaks to people and it's grandiose with a real vision. How many newer CG movies have your kids watched and still watch as often as this one?

mosconariz

07-28-2006, 04:51 PM

The entertainment world is a better place without Eisner as Disney's head :bounce:

Congratulations to the Animation History and traditions! :buttrock:

pearson

07-28-2006, 09:41 PM

I think it should be different than 3D... more painterly and more sketchy. I miss the old xeroxed cels because they had a tendency to copy parts of the rough sketching as well. I think that Jungle Book and Pooh really are charming because of this.My thoughts exactly. When Snow White came out on DVD I was shocked by the line quality. Compared to today's animations it is a good deal looser and less stylized. It doesn't hurt the excellent animation at all, and gives it a very different feel from newer animations. I think 2D will have to go this route to stand out from 3D; you can't beat 3D for clean, crisp edges, but 3D has a really hard time looking as loose as 2D can.

Papa Lazarou

07-28-2006, 10:56 PM

The problems with Snow White's line quality were mostly due to the difficulty of using ink on cell, as well as a few rushed rotoscope scenes. In later films, this improved. Later on when xerography was introduced on 101 dalmations, it was easier to control volumes and inaccuracies because the drawings were the actual animator drawings, rather than an inker's tracing. The work that followed was some of the most precise animation ever done. the rough look that these films have really shows the craftsmanship, but came to be seen as cheap. Films like Fox and the Hound and Secret of Nimh moved away from this look and tried to replicate ink and paint through cleaner lines and colour xerography. The really slick cleaned up lines you get on films like Aladdin and The Lion King was done to facilitate early digital ink and paint. The slick look has persisted, and if anything gotten slicker ever since even though it is now possible to colour rougher lines. It takes a huge amount of skill to clean up these drawings with those smooth flawless lines, but it can look really bland. It starts to look more like an industrial process than a drawing. In a way this could be viewed as wasted effort, because the clean up drawings take longer to do than the actual animation drawings that do the entertaining.

I don't think it hurt that the earlier efforts showed the craft of the process, but this was rarely intentional. It can help the audience to appreciate the amount of effort involved and sense the hand of the artist, but it risks taking them out of the picture. I hope the new films will have some of that hand-made skillful look, but in a way that is fresh and new. It's an old artform, compared to cg, but there is plenty of new ground to explore. One of the things that impressed me about Fantasia 2000 was the flamingo sequence. All of that animation was hand-painted! A worthy experiment (but obviously not the way to go for a full feature). The point is even if you didn't realise that, you can sense the craft.

Breinmeester

07-28-2006, 11:17 PM

Obviously 2D can beat 3D stylewise. Only a few 3D features really pushed style (I like 'Madagascar's style and 'Open Season' looks promissing). But 3D has a couple of features that really upped audience involvement, like the camera that offers the possibility of keen photography. Stuff like that better photography, shaders, on model characters and such helps the audience over the style threshold animation has and gets them right into the story and make it feel like seeing the dream for real on the screen. A 2D animation feature today will have to be up to par at those areas. Then it can add those things 2D has over 3D.

And the story will have to be up to par with the newer animations. Pixar really set a high standard with plot structure and PDI's films really push the comedy side. I hope they don't make The Frog Princess too much like the old Disney musical fairytale.

Papa Lazarou

07-29-2006, 12:18 AM

Obviously 2D can beat 3D stylewise. Only a few 3D features really pushed style (I like 'Madagascar's style and 'Open Season' looks promissing). But 3D has a couple of features that really upped audience involvement, like the camera that offers the possibility of keen photography. Stuff like that better photography, shaders, on model characters and such helps the audience over the style threshold animation has and gets them right into the story and make it feel like seeing the dream for real on the screen. A 2D animation feature today will have to be up to par at those areas. Then it can add those things 2D has over 3D.

There is a huge amount of unexplored territory when it comes to style in 3d CG. Everyone's been so busy copying Pixar that we've barely scratched the surface of what is possible. All it takes is a little imagination.

What 2d has is an unprecidented level of flexibility for the character animator. It doesn't need fancy camera moves or realistic textures. It's simplicity and directness is it's strength.

vangaans

07-29-2006, 01:06 AM

Speaking of 2D/3D films. I watched another film from my collection last night. Dreamworks Sinbad. They really pulled it off with this one. Good story, great animation and a beautiful integration of 2D and 3D elements. The 3D elements are rendered with a highly painterly style texture. Really helps bring it all together.

If you haven't seen this film yet, it's truly worth a look. Hope Dreamworks get back into 2D, they certainly have the right man for the job. Jeffrey Katzenburg.
OT: Hi Breinmeester, my mother comes from Utrecht.

Breinmeester

07-29-2006, 09:01 AM

What 2d has is an unprecidented level of flexibility for the character animator. It doesn't need fancy camera moves or realistic textures. It's simplicity and directness is it's strength.

Nothing needs to be fancy, but if you compare the photography of today's animation features with those of the pre-3D age, the newer use photography much more as a mean to draw the audience in. Take for example the wobbly over shoulder camera on the hangbridge in Shrek, simulating Donkey's dizzyness. Then remember the vertigo style zoom/truck shot in the Lion King when Mufassa dies. Both shots really up story elements, but the Shot in The Lion King is the money shot of the film and must've been a pain to make. Therefore shots like those are rare in 2D, but in 3D it's just a matter of setting some keys on a camera.
Stuff like this will off course be a lot easier to add in a 2D film today if you bring the drawings in the computer and do it in post, but it'll take a visionary director.

Also I feel you can go much closer on the characters in 3D because of the shaders. Close up shots are a rarity in the early Disney films. Fact is that at some point the audience is looking at a giant flat shape, which can be very distracting and often causes quite ugly compositions. With 3D we get a nice skin shader and maybe even see some birth marks or skin irregularities.

Some characters are hard to keep on model. I saw The Little Mermaid the other day and it amazed me how often Ariel and prince Eric (is that his name?) are off model. I'm sure a post-3D audience will notice this much quicker because it's spoiled with all these CG characters that are always on model.

The non-linearity and possibility of instant playback in CG animation really pushed animation forward. I'm sure that even the best draughtsman of the new generation of computer animators will have a hard time to do all those tiny bits that really sell the shot on paper, as I've come to learn these are often things they add at the very end.

These are all things you'll have to keep in mind when you bring back 2D. Sure it's all about story, but story can't carry a feature film on its own. You can have a solid story for a film about cars as characters, but you'll have to remember that picking such square objects as cars as your characters will result in bad compositions, talking head animation with unreadable silhouets, weird designs for buildings (like a completely empty courthouse) and difficult interaction with props (you can only have so much buttons for everything, and then again who ever in that universe built those buttons?) This made me, although I think Cars is the better film because of its story, enjoy Over the Hedge more.

robcat2075

07-29-2006, 05:38 PM

"Frog Princess"? Won't know until we see it, but it sounds like a return to territory that's already been trodden to death.

I'd rather that they went back to work on "Fraidy Cat" which was said to be a suspense-thiller kind of picture.

Breinmeester

07-29-2006, 06:35 PM

I'd rather that they went back to work on "Fraidy Cat" which was said to be a suspense-thiller kind of picture.

Agreed. But 'Fraidy Cat' was set to be 3D.

NanoGator

07-29-2006, 08:51 PM

Papa Lazarou

07-30-2006, 01:24 PM

I don't know how you would go about putting skin shaders on 2d animation. I imagine it would be quite difficult, and besides, if that's what you want, it would probably be cheaper to just go with 3d in the first place. Maybe you are talking about tone mattes for showing light and shade. They had an automated process for doing that on Looney Tunes: Back in Action, which didn't require the mattes to be hand drawn like on Space Jam. In my opinion it looked tacky, but with a little more restraint it might be workable.

Same goes for camera moves. It's not as hard as it once was to do pans and truck-ins now that they can be done digitally. Point-of-view shots and camera rotations will always be tricky, and require a lot of pre-planning. If the film requires a lot of them, it would probably be better and cheaper to go with 3d.

The way to advance 2d animation isn't to push it into a 3d straightjacket or a live-action straightjacket, it's to push things in a more imaginative direction and to work to the strengths of the medium.

Breinmeester

07-30-2006, 02:35 PM

I agree that 2D should push what it's got and use its freedom of style to bring something new. But I think that the animation filmmakers of today that want to make a 2D film musn't deny the way that the 3D films have changed the animation watching public. 3D really progressed audience involvement and I think any animation film made today cannot fall behind in that area.
If 2D animation was still pushed forward alongside 3D in this decade passed, it would surely have develloped means to improve audience involvement to be up to par with 3D. But because it has been abandonned I'm sure anyone trying to bring 2D back will have to ackowledge that the medium has some catching up to do.

I also think it will work best if the medium utilises its strengths to do that catching up. Off course I was not opting for 2D to look shaded. I was merely pointing out an area where 3D has another advantage over 2D in communicating to the audience clearly. Fact remains that an animation film today will need to have some good close-ups when the story asks for it, the audience has come to expect that from animation. But I do think 2D should use what it's got to do it. Like adding texture to the shapes with colour or brushstrokes (or any other material texture) or more facial details like freggles.

I'd really like the next generation 2D films to be truly 2D, like 'The thief and the Cobbler' and the before mentioned 'Brendan and the Secret of Kells' (http://www.cartoonsaloon.ie/website.htm ). But there are more means than style and story to draw the audience in and I think the next generation of 2D films will have to find a way to use those.

Hammy_W

07-31-2006, 12:17 AM

Up until now, people still watch Animes and Ghibli's studio's 2D animations anyway. I don't think people demand so much about all those fancy effects all the time. Although something new such as styles and concept are things people would like to see coming out from the theaters sometimes.It still goes back all the way to story, I think. Then concept, ideas. :) I still enjoy watching Tarzan, Little Mermaid, Aladdin, and many others animation to this date.

vangaans

07-31-2006, 01:16 AM

I'd really like the next generation 2D films to be truly 2D, like 'The thief and the Cobbler' and the before mentioned 'Brendan and the Secret of Kells' (http://www.cartoonsaloon.ie/website.htm ).

Thanks for the link Breinmeester. :thumbsup:
They've got a really nice style going on there. Totally enjoyed the line tests in the animation section. Great Stuff!

.

opengineer

08-04-2006, 06:23 PM

I wonder if this has anything to do with Pixar? If I remember correctly, Disney announced the end of 2d around the same time Pixar announced their succession from Disney. Now that Disney has Pixar back under control, they don't need to worry about direct competition, so they bring back 2d. Just a thought. I may love 3d, but THANK GOODNESS! Now lets just hope they can come up with some good stories and memorable characters!

As I understood the merge between Pixar and Disney, Steve Jobs received 51% control and now sits on Board.. apple computers, iTunes, iPod, pixar, disney, ABC...

way to go Steve!

pearson

08-04-2006, 06:41 PM

As I understand it, Treasure Planet's lack of success spooked the people holding the purse strings.Well, I'm no expert, but how many times can you tell kids the same story and still expect them to be interested?

"This is the story of the 3 little...uh...Ducks. Yeah. Not pigs, no no! Hey, where are you going?" :rolleyes:

aaraaf

08-04-2006, 07:18 PM

"Frog Princess"? Won't know until we see it, but it sounds like a return to territory that's already been trodden to death.
Like talking animals? :deal: Or humor/moments that only mean something to you if you see the movie the scene is based on? I think the Achiles' Heels (as far as formulas) of the CG "cartoon" film industry have presented themselves already as well.

Almost all of these movies (that require child friendly) are formulaic and predictable. I think it's in the way that the story is told and the environment that makes it good. Even Miyazaki movies are formulaic to a point, but there's little that even approaches their excellence in any format.

Disney's finally put their great crew in charge, and taken out the middle man in these stories. It's been a long time. This is the first time since Disney himself was involved that an artist is in charge of the show... movies and themeparks and all.

It's not the technique... it's the story. The money guys who are good know when to step in and when to stay out of the way and how to keep things on track. These guys are vital to any industry. But the entire last batch of 2D films were created by committee (find some info on Bluth talking about Titan AE storyboard meetings) and management that lacked this skill...

SteelPoet

08-04-2006, 07:32 PM

BAH...i'd rather see another Incredibles flick then yet another kid flick. Animation is NOT just for kids dang it!!

aaraaf

08-04-2006, 07:33 PM

Slurry

08-04-2006, 08:09 PM

I thought Sci Fi meant science fiction?

Womball

08-04-2006, 08:30 PM

I'd like to see some cel-painted movies again. :-) With orchestral scores or catchy music.

pearson

08-04-2006, 09:59 PM

Pearson, I don't know if Treasure Planet is a good example of Disney making the same thing over. It was unlike anything they had done before. There were no songs sung and very little sunny picturesque settings.

The design was closer to a mix that fell between Farscape and The Matrix as far as story telling and environment feeling than anything the studio put out. It was also about as hard an sf (science fiction, not sci-fi) story as you'll see on space faring. Very different stuff from all sides.For the record, I liked the movie. I like the 3D even. It had that overly slick look that Disney prefers nowadays, but that and the angsty, rebellious, teenager-with-a-heart-of-gold thing were the only two things I didn't like about it.

However, it was "Treasure Island", written in 1881! This story has been made into a movie a few times already (http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=treasure+island). I realize modern kids can't read, but it's been told in a few books as well, including several targeted specifically at kids.

aaraaf

08-04-2006, 10:08 PM

Hey Slurry!

Some hard core science fiction fans differentiate... plausible and thought out stuff (2001, I Robot, Blade Runner as Science Fiction) to pop fun stuff (Stargate, Buck Rogers, Star Trek as Sci Fi). Mostly Arthur C. Clark (the guy's responsible for geosynchronous satellites through one of his books) and Isaac Asimov (who are we really kind of questioning) kind of stuff vs. rescuing the girl with a laser blaster. Treasure Planet's rare in that a lot of the tech was thought out in a way that most movies don't. If Rendezvouz with Rama ever sees the light of day it'll be a bit like TP with the colony. TPs one of those movies that might be a lot better in a few years.

Sorry... way OT. :)

@ Pearson...

OHHHH... that kind of been done before. I though we were talking Disney formula, not old fashion everyone else formula. :thumbsup: The teenage angst did get irritating. There are so few movies with teenagers where they really capture the drama and feeling of that point in life, and even fewer that make you want to re-live any of it. And the ones that don't make it sad and depressing make it way too bubblegum.