Disney Ends Traditional Animation?

[roger]

You need to be able to log on the latines site to read it so I will paste it here
------------------------------------------------------------------

New Animation Chief Redraws Rules at Disney
By Claudia Eller and Richard Verrier
Times Staff Writers

April 29, 2003

David Stainton, the new chief of animation at Walt Disney Co., is not big on rules, which is fine with Henry, a low-slung hound who, at the moment, is chomping on a stuffed Piglet toy in the executive's office.

Although company policy forbids pets on the Burbank lot, Stainton has been smuggling his mutt into the studio for some time. He doesn't plan to stop just because he now holds one of the most visible and difficult jobs in the Disney empire.

In fact, Stainton hopes to infuse the place with a little more irreverence for past conventions.

"I really want to shake it up," he said, petting his contented companion.

After 14 years working under the public radar at Disney, Stainton sits atop an operation steeped in history -- the company's heart and soul throughout its 80 years. Animation has been a driving force behind the company's theme parks, retail stores, movies and TV shows.

It also has become one of the company's most confounding problems.

The animation division has suffered through three chiefs in four years. Along the way have come wrenching layoffs, deep cost cuts and the studio's biggest flop ever, last year's "Treasure Planet." Although still considered the market leader in animation, Disney has lost ground to rivals, especially DreamWorks SKG, the company headed by former Disney Studios chief Jeffrey Katzenberg that produced the blockbuster "Shrek."

At the same time, Disney faces tough profit-sharing negotiations over its lucrative partnership with Pixar Animation Studios, creator of hits such as the "Toy Story" movies, "Monsters, Inc." and next month's "Finding Nemo."

To all this, Stainton is expected by Disney to bring stability, vigor and profitability.

"I think we're at a time in the organization where we have to be thinking about breaking the mold and figuring out what we aren't doing and what we can be doing in a different way," Stainton said in his first extensive interview since taking the helm in January.

On Monday, the new boss roiled the ranks when he told a gathering of 525 animation employees that he wants them to produce lush, classic fairy tales -- perhaps "The Snow Queen" or "Rapunzel" -- entirely on computers. His vision was greeted with dropped jaws by the roomful of artists steeped in the traditional style of hand-drawn animation pioneered by Disney.

"There's a lot of fear," said veteran Disney animator Glen Keane, who drew the characters Tarzan, Aladdin and Pocahontas. "He's trying to steer the studio in a direction that half the artists are afraid to go and the other half are headlong racing down that path." Keane said he felt "personally challenged."

For his part, Stainton said he was simply "throwing another grenade into the pot." He knows that his message has "caused anxiety here because what I'm asking doesn't currently exist -- and that frightens people."

---Down to Business

Stainton also has wasted no time letting folks know he means business.

Barely into his new job, he put two high-profile projects, "Chicken Little" and "My Peoples," on hold because he said they needed more focus. "There's a point in every movie where the whole thing falls apart, that moment where you look at it and say, 'We have to retrench,' " Stainton said. "It was that time."

Some who have worked with Stainton say his blunt style and occasional impatience can be off-putting. He said he resents being "surprised by problems" and will "definitely get brusque" if he has to repeat directions. Some of Stainton's co-workers say his blunt style doesn't sit well with the fragile egos of artists.

Stainton conceded that he had a "mixed record" in his dealings with artists, but said his perceived aloofness was a reflection of the limited time he had to spend with them, rather than a lack of appreciation for their talent or input.

That's one reason Stainton plans to move his office in Disney's flagship animation building down one floor to where the production team is based.

Stainton was plucked by Disney Chief Executive Michael Eisner largely because of his success in turning TV animation into a money machine with such low-cost direct-to-video sequels as "Lion King II" and inexpensive feature films that include "Piglet's Big Movie" and "Return to Never Land." Under his stewardship, the division also created the popular animated TV series "Kim Possible."

The financial discipline Stainton needed on the TV side will serve him well in his new job, where his mandate is to produce most movies under $100 million.

---Blending Worlds

Throughout his tenure at Disney, Stainton has developed a reputation as a bridge builder between the very different worlds of TV and feature animation.

"There was a time when feature animators wouldn't speak to TV animators," Disney Vice Chairman Roy E. Disney said. "David was a big asset. He kept feature animation and TV animation more arm-in-arm than they had been."

Among Stainton's more intriguing plans for the feature animation unit is to recruit live-action movie directors with distinctive styles to help create animated films.

"We've been a relatively closed shop for quite a long time," Stainton said. "There's no reason to limit ourselves just to people we have under this roof."

He began his pursuit of new talent just weeks into the new job after reading a magazine article about "Moulin Rouge" director Baz Luhrmann and his penchant for churning ideas.

Although Stainton had never met the filmmaker, he tracked down his e-mail address and sent him a pitch.

"What you make are big, musical animated fairy tales, except you do it in live action," Stainton said he wrote. "I wonder if you would be interested in seeing what kind of thing you could do with ... [what] we have in our sandbox."

According to Stainton, the director responded, "I never really thought about it that way. I think it would be very exciting."

Stainton's boss, Disney Studios Chairman Dick Cook, likes the notion of breaking down walls between live action and animation, an approach that worked well with filmmaker Tim Burton, who created the story and characters for Disney's 1993 animated movie "The Nightmare Before Christmas."

"He's got everybody energized," Cook said of his new animation chief. "He's got both the left brain and the right brain working simultaneously."

People who know Stainton say his out-of-the-box thinking is a refreshing contrast to Disney's conservative culture.

"He will be a marked change for the studio," said talent and literary manager Ellen Goldsmith-Vein, who represents top animation filmmakers. "David knows innately what it takes to be successful and to make Disney a major force again."

One thing Stainton said he knows for sure: The studio's core audience for animation is 4- to 10-year-olds and their parents. "If you think you're making a movie for everybody, you're making a movie for nobody."

Stainton said that lack of clarity contributed to the dismal showing of "Treasure Planet," which cost an estimated $140 million but grossed just $38 million domestically.

The "blow and shock" of "Treasure Planet's" performance was a wake-up call, he said. "It really gives us a chance to throw everything up in the air and look under every rock and stone in terms of questioning the way we do business ... to a degree that I don't know would have been possible without that kind of financial failure."

On the face of it, Stainton would seem an unlikely candidate to head one of Disney's key creative centers. He was an American history major at Princeton University (his thesis was "The American Reaction to French 19th Century Revolutions") and received his MBA at Harvard Business School.

Arts & Entertainment

But while his colleagues were preparing to become bankers and consultants, Stainton was thinking entertainment. The arts had been a lifelong passion for Stainton, who grew up in a middle-class household in Rochester, N.Y. His mother, a bacteriologist in a local hospital, played piano competitively and sang in a choral group.

"That was a big influence on me," said Stainton, who played French horn, piano and acted and sang in high school and college stage productions.

Although his mother and father, who worked in human resources for a local department store, supported his artistic pursuits, they wanted him to be a doctor, lawyer or businessman.

"I was brought up to think that all of that is great as a hobby, but of course you need to do something you don't like as a real job," Stainton joked.

Thus, it was a stroke of good fortune that he was recruited as a strategic planning and finance executive in 1989 by Disney brass who were scouting the Ivy League for business candidates.

Soon after, Stainton realized he was misplaced and began taking UCLA Extension classes at night in script development and movie production.

While still in strategic planning, Stainton conducted a study for Disney's then-animation chief Peter Schneider on how to build on the surprise success of "The Little Mermaid" with a steady stream of development projects. Impressed with his analysis, Schneider hired him to work in feature animation development in 1991.

There he promptly showed his creative side. One Christmas, while visiting his parents back East, he was rummaging through his collection of "classic" comics, which included "The Hunchback of Notre Dame."

"I was a nerdy kid," he said. "I didn't read Superman or Batman comics."

As he thumbed through his Hunchback comic, he was struck with the idea that it would make a good animated movie. He wrote an outline and made the case to his bosses. His idea would evolve into the 1996 film that grossed $325 million worldwide.

Stainton knows that not everything will come so easy for him or the studio. But he's optimistic.

"We've gone through a really wrenching process," he said. "I want to create an environment inside the building of fun and creativity. Let's remember, we're making cartoons."

[RichSuchy]

That looks like a good thing for CG people. There are bound to be plenty more jobs this summer than there already was shaping up to be.

yeah!

[Fasty]

Why don't they forget about all this marketing rubbish and put someone who has a vision, and wants to make fantastic and memorable movies in charge? :shrug: After all, they're the kinds of movies that make the most money.

[WillJohn]

Originally posted by Rich Suchy
That looks like a good thing for CG people. There are bound to be plenty more jobs this summer than there already was shaping up to be.

yeah!

IS THAT iron man ? as your sig?

badass whatever it is.

[cutepixie]

Originally posted by Fasty
Why don't they forget about all this marketing rubbish and put someone who has a vision, and wants to make fantastic and memorable movies in charge? :shrug: After all, they're the kinds of movies that make the most money.

i dunno about the money part but i would definetly appreicate the more visionary artistry that Disney was known for in the first place.

[headengine]

Great post - and a really interesting read.

You know - I've never ever heard of David Stainton before, but I sincerely hope he succeeds in re-invigorating a company with a wonderful history and an amazing amount of talented people.

All change is painful, and it's frequently also difficult. The fact that there is someone at the top now who recognises that in the 21st century, maybe Disney needs to do things a little (or a lot) different has me really excited: a little bit of 'Steve Jobs' style but in-house.

The fact that he asked Baz what would he do with their talent is exciting as hell. Can you imagine?

This is great news - painful maybe, challenging surely - but I wish the Disney folks the very best for the journey down their new road.

:applause:

[xynaria]

Will be interesting to see if the Baz Luhrmann thing goes ahead, but I think they need to think a bit harder about the 'computer angle' Making the move from 2D to 3D .. if that is the scenario is not as easy or straightforward as it seems on paper. :)

[asparapani]

Allow moi to jump in..

I highly doubt disney will let go of 2d all together. It is what they do best since they've been doing it for the entire term of their existence. When the public thinks 2d movies, they think Disney.

Now I don't think the look of 2d will die, just the way it's made will die. It is an outdated workflow that is very expensive. Most likely they would incorporate more 3d into their productions
( visible in all disney movies now) as a means to be cost effective.

[Jimzip]

Just remember though, a lot of what you see in Disney movies is CG, 3D posing as 2D. The Emperor's New Groove has a heap of CG in it that you don't notice.

If Disney goes 75% (Gross approximation here) 3D/computer animation, then the traditionals working there will be pretty upset. I really am looking forward to becoming a CG animator.. But before I knew what CG was, I was doing hand-drawn 2D stuff. If you spent your whole life wanting a job as an animator then you had someone saying that you will now have to re-hone your skills in another area and leave your ideas behind... Well, you say how you'd feel.

However, having said all that, I do agree about the job issue.. Maybe my vision at least for the future will happen after all!

Jimzip:D

[RichSuchy]

Originally posted by WillJohn
IS THAT iron man ? as your sig?

badass whatever it is.

Yes it is Iron Man, Thanks for the compliment!

the larger image is at:

IronMan (http://cgsculpt.com/images/ironmanColor2.jpg)

[RichSuchy]

Originally posted by Jimzip
If Disney goes 75% (Gross approximation here) 3D/computer animation, then the traditionals working there will be pretty upset.

Jimzip:D

Too late! about 7 or 8 months ago, Disney let go of most of thier traditional animators with no plans to re-hire till 2008 if memory servs. Or at least thats what some animators told me.

confirmations? anyone?

[bentllama]

you will find out about alot of traditional animation news and gossip at www.animationnation.com

that is a board that alot of current [and former] Disney and 2D animator biggies post at...

[Gentle Fury]

the really sad part about this is that it sounds like diz thinks they will be competition by no longer doing cell animation..........the fact of the matter is, the reason pixar is so amazing is because the stories and characters are excellant!!!

Pixar could throw away all the computers and draw all the frames on beer coasters and they would still be the best!! Its all about the thought that goes into the work!

If anyone has seen John Lasseter's student demo reel you will know what i mean.......all pencil tests....and all better then what disney has put out in the past few years!

sorry diz, more eye candy does NOT equal better movie!!!!

[roger]

you will find out about alot of traditional animation news and gossip at www.animationnation.com
Beware that animationnation.com has a lot of BITTER 2d artists. :p

[jeremybirn]

Originally posted by Rich Suchy
Too late! about 7 or 8 months ago, Disney let go of most of thier traditional animators with no plans to re-hire till 2008 if memory servs. Or at least thats what some animators told me.

confirmations? anyone?

Yes, they've laid off a lot of their traditional animators, but the funny thing is, they also let go their talented 3D people. Remember "The Secret Lab" that made Dinosaurs, Fantasia 2000, did VFX for 102 Dalmations, Reign of Fire, etc.? They were laid off as well - and you can't assemble a team (or a pipeline) like that overnight.

-jeremy

[JMulder]

Originally posted by roger
Beware that animationnation.com has a lot of BITTER 2d artists. :p

I just visited the site and you're not kidding!!:eek: People there are taking each sentence from the article and systematically tearing this guy down. There's some good commentary there, but also a lot of uncontained rage.

-Jim

[beaker]

I think it is a stupid idea of Disney. I love it that we will have more jobs, but it is going to cost us because disney and everyone else is going to flood the movies with way too much cgi animation and the animation market is going to crash because of it. Dreamworks is setting up for 2 cgi movies comming out a year starting next year, Pixar has 1 movie a year, Blue Sky 1 a year, DNA is working on another one and Disney looks like they are hiring everyone under the sun plus they are doing a bunch themselves. What happends in 2-3 years when there are 10-15 cgi movies in one year? I think there will be so much the public will not go see them all and we will have a big crash because 3/4 of them will fail from overexposure of the medium. If there are so many different cgi movies, having one traditional animated movie in one of those years of cgi chaos might actually set it away from the rest and the public might go see it instead of the other 10-15 cgi movies.

David Stainton's idea is like 5 years too late. When everyone else has been on board for years and then the boss says "Hey, look, I have an idea".

[beaker]

This would be the perfect time for Pixar to start doing traditional animated films. If you look at their storyboards they practically make an hand drawn film of each of their movies. Too bad Steve Jobs doesn't see it that way. He has said countless times that he believes that CGI is the future and tradition animation is a dying breed.

[roger]

Originally posted by jeremybirn
Yes, they've laid off a lot of their traditional animators, but the funny thing is, they also let go their talented 3D people.
That's because Disney got out of the "film FX" business and offered jobs to most/all of those guys. Some stayed but a lot left because they did not want to work on CG movies......they still wanted to work on FX films.

[WillRyan]

Ah, but Pixar IS looking into 2D animation. It was in mainstream coverage a few months ago that Pixar recently bought two more buildings with plans to tear them down and re-build them. Unofficially, Pixar has been buying up and storing hundreds of animation stands and other supplies whenever traditional studios shut down. Steve Jobs has said multiple times that Pixar thinks they can release a film every year, much on the order that Disney has for the last decade. All of this is interesting, once you connect it to the fact that Pixar now has in its ranks Brad Bird, the director of Iron Giant. Currently directing The Incredibles, Bird supposedly would resume work on Ray Gunn, the next 2D movie he would've worked on at Warner Bros after Iron Giant. Considering that Tony Fucile, Micheal Gagne, and a bunch of other IG alumni have worked on Incredibles, it makes a lot of sense. That's why I look at Disney's decision to go 3D with a smile. Hopefully it will push some of the traditionalists into becoming masters of 3D, and push others into the waiting arms of Pixar.

[MCronin]

Originally posted by beaker
but it is going to cost us because disney and everyone else is going to flood the movies with way too much cgi animation and the animation market is going to crash because of it... ...What happends in 2-3 years when there are 10-15 cgi movies in one year? I think there will be so much the public will not go see them all and we will have a big crash because 3/4 of them will fail from overexposure of the medium. If there are so many different cgi movies, having one traditional animated movie in one of those years of cgi chaos might actually set it away from the rest and the public might go see it instead of the other 10-15 cgi movies.

This idea I don't get at all. Why is it OK to release hundreds of live action movies a year, but more than a handful of Animated Features will somehow crash the "market"? There's a huge market out there for Animated Features of all types. I'd love to see a new animated movie every other week or so. I can't tell you how many times I've looked at the paper on a Saturday wanting to take the kid to see something, but there's just nothing out. The medium is film, not CG, and not every one of these features is going to look or feel the same. I don't think the average movie goer is going to lump all CG animated features into one big ball and eventually burn out on them. For most people in the audience they just look at it as a movie; it doesn't matter if it was made with a computer or a pencil or live actors.

I think there's a great big market out there for feature animation that hasn't even been scratched, mostly because feature animation is such a risky proposition. It used to take lots of time and money to make an animated feature, but we are at the point where technology is going to allow us to start doing it faster and cheaper, and much faster and much cheaper as time moves on. I'm sure we'll start seeing more and more animated features each year, and it'll be great

Disney is doing the right thing at the right time.

[Fasty]

Which aspect of animation does technology make faster? Colouring perhaps... I don't know about the actual animation itself though. Which is quicker to produce? Hand-drawn animation, or 3D animation?

[xynaria]

Might be wrong but so far no CG movie has bombed.. mainly cos they've stood up for themselves pretty well. Every time Disney or Don Bluth had a major sucess financially, all the studios put in their pipeline at least one 2D animated movie.. not many worked, especially financially, and even Iron Giant that received almost a unaminous thumbs up critically fizzled at the Box Office. Dreamworks as Amblin produced three major non events before hitting it with The Prince Of Egypt. At the moment producing 3D films on paper looks lucrative.. if a few of them turkey then it's only inevitable. Disney, Pixar et all that have had successes have done so because they had good films well marketed, not because they were 2D or 3D. The saddest thing is that there are few places in the Western hemisphere now where you can work in 2D and those skills don't come overnight any more than 3D does. Disney of all people should know the difficulties in getting a feature crew up, running and working, and however good any ideas they may have and develop they are still going to need a crew/crews to put them into practice. starting almost from scratch again could proove very expensive in all terms of the word. 2D or 3d isn't that important in the end if you can't get the talent to translate it so letting go of most of a talented 2D crew rather than finding projects that kept them going whilst training them in 3D if neccessary seems to be not the smartest of ideas. :)

[Celshader]

Originally posted by xynaria
Might be wrong but so far no CG movie has bombed..

I'm not so sure...Final Fantasy: The Spirit Within did not bring in enough $$$ at the box office to keep Square Pictures alive.:sad:

[xynaria]

DOH! oops forgot all about FF.. as did most I guess, not that that many went anyway. :)

[RichSuchy]

Originally posted by Fasty
Which aspect of animation does technology make faster? Colouring perhaps... I don't know about the actual animation itself though. Which is quicker to produce? Hand-drawn animation, or 3D animation?

The places where cg shines currently

You can taylor a wider range of looks
Reusable sets, and scene dressing. but from diferent angles and with...
... mores stability when dealing with a solid moving in perspective. such as spaceships or underwater transportation moving away or toward, in parabolic arcs. (I've seen some terrible handling of such stuff drawn by hand)

Blending multiple animations to derive such things as a crouded city street of people, a hourd of barbarians, etc.

And though it takes allot of up front time to build the assets, Once done, time can be saved in many ways. Just doing pencil tests for instance using Open GL... Time can be saved or manpower, however you want to spend that savings.

Rich

[beaker]

Originally posted by xynaria
Might be wrong but so far no CG movie has bombed..
Also forgot Disney's Dinosaur, Sinbad(cgi movie from India).

[xynaria]

Nope.. didn't forget Dinosaur.. it's box office would not have been considered a failure had it not cost such a ridiculous amount and hadn't have been so expectant of huge returns. In comparison to 3D releases, 2D thus far has a far higher failure rate...... however this again is not down to the fact of the medium but the story, execution, marketing etc. On paper to date 3D on a superficial glance looks to be a good bet..... but then to some.. so did 2d because they were considered comparitively cheap to make and if you got Lion King you got rich...... Hell... apparently FR07 broke even eventually courtesy of the American home video market. On paper FF looked to be a blockbuster in the making, I doubt it's failure was really down to it being CG. :)

[LucentDreams]

I think one thing thats killing the classical market is the obsession of as Katzenberg so aptly named it TRADIGITAL. I eman seriously while I was very very impressed with the work done on Silver by Keane's team, did they really save themselves money by doing the arm CG. I mean they have been spending so much money on developing new techniques and really trying to merge classical and CG in recent films it seems more artists are needed now, they are dividing up crews evenmore,and basically spending a bunch of money on areas that I"m not realy sure they needed.Personally I ffel the better films from disney as of late were returning back to hte roots of classical, Lilo and Stitch and even more so Emperor's new groove.

As for your comment about opening up more opportunities for sg animators, I wouldn't necessarily count on that Rich. Seams to me well over 50% of pixar crew are classically experienced or trained artists (probably more up in the 70 or 80%) I mean look at a lot of the designers and such ofor mosters Inc, lot of turner/WB guys moved there after the fall, those guys were an amazing crew, CDD and IG were to of the best animated films problem was, most people still haven't heard of Cat's don't dance, and when it came out no one knew about Iron Giant. The articles I have seen refering to the poor box office turnouts for Treasure planet and Spirited away. Well I think most of us will agree spirited away was a far better film, reason it did so poor, compare disneys promotion of their own treasure planet, versus their promotion of Miyazaki's Spirited Away. most people hadn't even heard of it, when I saw it in theatres, the only people there were VFS students and a bunch Japanese and Korean Anime miyazaki fan's.

I was heartbroken sitting at VFS listening to a lecture from a dreamworks marketing agent tell us abut all of their future projects, and as frustratedas I am with tradigital, I really got worried that Sinbad was tradigital, and the ONLY ONLY film proposed that had any classical animation. Few weeks later they announced the new CG studio and the mass hiring at PDI and DReamworks new CG studio, I knew classical was over there. If disney goes the same root I think we are in trouble. My hope now lies in independent small studio films like My Little World and LeTriplette Du Bellville (sp?) to help rebuild the market. Mean while we have films like Hey arnold being made for 2 milion dollars, heck they can do as bad as The worst disney main feature and still make an awesome profit.

Well I"m still young, will have to see where the industry takes me :/ If I could work on projects like My Little World I"d be more than happy.

[ChewyPixels]

Originally posted by roger
Beware that animationnation.com has a lot of BITTER 2d artists. :p

I can understand this perfectly. This idea of Disney moving over to complete CG films is insane. I love cg, but traditional animation is an artform that teaches the fundamentals of ANY type of animation. Does this mean that traditional animation is a dying artform? Some of the best cg animators started out as traditional animators.

[roger]

A lot of Matte Painters and Model Builders have lost their jobs because of CG.
You have to be able to flow with the changes.
I used to be a Special Makeup Effects Artist and I saw CG was taking over a lot of Creature work. I saw that first hand on "Men in Black". I worked on that film for over a year and a lot of that work was on the Edgar Bug that we built, but was later cut from the film and re-done as a CG Character. With a CG Character it can do "ANYTHING" !

A few years from now.....someone will make a 2d film.....it will make a lot of $$$ then 2d will be back.
Until then....because I work in CG film now....I am more than HAPPY the CG is the THANG now!! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[RichSuchy]

"Artform?"

Not to be combative but so what? I went to art school and one thing I got out of it was how much art apreciation was pushed by people who wanted others to apreciate them. I think a capatistic society is a good enough filter to judge what it wants to apreciate. That filter is like voting. If there arent enough people out there that apreciate it then the money goes away.

Its not how you make the art that matters but the results you get. If the people want cell look stuff with squash and stretch whos to say you have to draw it frame by frame if better ways of getting that become available.

Also many of the traditional skills translate and 3d artists tend to work on those by taking drawing classes, and reading the classic books on the subject to glean what they need to know, but in the end it was all learned by observing life. If we find better tools to arive at the same or a wider range of ends, thats progress.

Please don't name things "art" and make a religeon out of it. Thats why tax payers money goes to by artwork that wouldnt be purched (not valued) by anyone but the artist.

Personally I can think of better places to spend my money than on the "piss christ"

Just though another angle on this needed stating.



Hey! wheres my spelling checker?


Originally posted by chui1675
...but traditional animation is an artform that teaches the fundamentals of ANY type of animation. Does this mean that traditional animation is a dying artform? Some of the best cg animators started out as traditional animators.

[noxy]

The fact that this man is responsible for the Disney "cheapquels" straight to video movies gives me little hope for the mouse to regain it's former animation dominance. Unless they can hold onto their lead character animators and make them comfortable with using the computer, I don't see much advantage to switching to cg, most of the other places that have been successful (Blue Sky PDI) have a long history of computer animation and effects. If you were a successful character animator who switched to cg, wouldn't you want the stability of Pixar?

[RichSuchy]

Originally posted by noxy
The fact that this man is responsible for the Disney "cheapquels" straight to video movies gives me little hope for the mouse to regain it's former animation dominance. Unless they can hold onto their lead character animators and make them comfortable with using the computer, I don't see much advantage to switching to cg, most of the other places that have been successful (Blue Sky PDI) have a long history of computer animation and effects. If you were a successful character animator who switched to cg, wouldn't you want the stability of Pixar?

1. He was sucessful in the box they put him.

2. Disney itself doesnt, can't have a monopoly because the truth is that artists are migratory as jobs close and open industry-wide.
meaning that, there isnt such a thing as a "Disney Artist" except in the most transitory sense.

3. Disney can hire the talent. there is allot out there. I've worked at Disney doing cg and I'm a few days from needing work myself. Disney had bought dreamquest and turned them into the secret lab.... which is now defunct... however they did hold onto some of the best talent that they had from there and from other projects using CG.

4. In the end its about ideas and modernizing your pipeline to compete in a changing, evolving industry.

[xynaria]

Originally posted by Rich Suchy
"Artform?"



Please don't name things "art" and make a religeon out of it. Thats why tax payers money goes to by artwork that wouldnt be purched (not valued) by anyone but the artist.



I think you are taking that out of context somewhat as I believe what was meant by artform here was as much skill and execution set rather than 'art'
You don't like art.. big deal but as you know from 3d, any skill needs practice to become and stay sharp. Most 2D animation is now done around the Pacific Rim with only Disney and Dreamworks in the West offering major homes for people to hone their craft. Good animators are few and far between, and those that are have often taken many years to develop that skill, part of the reason that animators rarely retire voluntarily. Loosing both that facility and that skill set has got to be a major waste for all concerned. Translating those skills into 3D isn't also going to happen overnight. It's ok saying Disney can hire at will... yup they can.. so can anyone but out of a crew of say 250 that is kinda the norm for a feature you will maybe get less than 10% that are trully good and then you got to get them all capable of working together which ain't so easy. Losing a good part of a working team is not something that can easily be just replaced which is why Disney used to gap people between productions.. nor can you just shove them in front of software seats and expect them to just pick up where they left off with a pencil.. that isn't modernising your pipeline .. that is living in the land of make believe. :)

[RichSuchy]

Originally posted by xynaria
I think you are taking that out of context somewhat as I believe what was meant by artform here was as much skill and execution set rather than 'art'


I dont think I was taking it out of context so much as trying to explain where I was coming from on the issue.

As for skill and execution set. We're really talking about a tool set. Many traditional animators are not retrainable. They do'nt have the interest and are too far behind the curve. The traditional training in drawing and understanding motion is great but people who master the new tools can be taught the same way thoe traditionalist ones were. In fact the next generation of artists is picking up on the tools just fine.

Im not even saying that traditional need entirely go away. there are things that are impracticle to do in 3d (at least at the moment), though 3d elements and piplines can help reduce those costs on productions that are otherwise best done by hand.


You don't like art.. big deal


No thats not true. What I am saying is that one should not asume that because making thier own paint was a part of the art for the old masters, that the craft need not be maintained in the way that they did it. Its ok to loose some things to antiquity. People spend too much time worrying about how something is done than what the end result is... labling a precess "art" doesnt give it value, its what the end result is that matters, and if a more practicle way is found, then so be it.


Losing a good part of a working team is not something that can easily be just replaced which is why Disney used to gap people between productions.. nor can you just shove them in front of software seats and expect them to just pick up where they left off with a pencil.. that isn't modernising your pipeline .. that is living in the land of make believe. :)

Competition will drive change.
Generations change. The old makes way for the new. Thats the way of things. you can deny it all you want but now whos living in a land of fantasy? :)

Adapt or D... I dont want to say that... Adapt or flip burgers.

:)

Really though, allot of the skills can transfer over to supervisory and director rolls.

Its funny, I heard the industry joke is how Disney keeps losing good people who go on to found, or be a major part of successful competition.

[xynaria]

Adapt or.........


use what you got to it's best advantage perhaps... oops sorry .. isn't that adapting....

Some traditional animators will have problems going a CG route but in animation as in most things, however you produce what you produce, some things can't be taught and at best can only be 'passed on' by inspiring others. As you note.. at present there are some things that you can do with 2D that you just 'can't do' in 3D.. why be hamstrung. Ther are also things you can do in 3D you couldn't deam of in 2D. Whether this guy turns Disneys fortunes or sends them down the pan, who knows, but on first look the thinking apparent seems somewhat superficial.

I am certainly not against change, or adapting to different needs, its just that changing from pencil to CG is not in itself addressing the apparent problems, quite the opposite and it's putting people out of work to my mind unjustifiably. that is not denying change.. that is saying perhaps a problem is better addressed than scapegoated.

Just as things change you never escape your past and without a past you would have no present..take the good and ditch the bad.. there's little new under the sun, and the current state of most cg conceptually is still miles 'behind' most other forms of media, it is not an instant answer to a problem by any means. The areas where IMHO it has been most successful is when its most invisible and the concerns of storytelling, characterisation, perception etc etc come rolling into play. Would the Simpsons be any better done on CG.. doubtful...it may match 2D Simpsons but only if the media by which it was produced wasn't a focus. It's the people and their talents that give form to things .. not a pipeline, or a CG system. :)

[jonnymac]

i think a lot of this is to do with the fact that the big studios dont make 'traditional' animated films anymore. They all have cg elements in them now, but they like to call them 'Hybrid' movies.

But, does the big studios downsizing their 'traditional' departments mean the worst for animated features?

I have certainly heard about alot of independant features in production in Europe at the moment, perhaps this is what the industry needs at the moment.

[ChewyPixels]

Originally posted by xynaria

at present there are some things that you can do with 2D that you just 'can't do' in 3D.. why be hamstrung.

I wouldn't be surprised if Disney ends up using 2d elements in this new all 3D pipeline. Only time will tell if this decision is a wise one.

[The Magic Pen]

I think it is a good move for Disney if they want to keep the mouse house alive , but if they would have kept up the tradition of great feature animations like Lion King and Aladin , Little Mermaid then they would never have had a problem . :rolleyes:

Lion King was there biggest best selling film and Treasure planet is like completly opposite of that movie why would they ever think to make it ?? :shame: I liked it but parents want to take there kids to see cute little characters that sing and dance when they go to a disney movie :hmm:

[RichSuchy]

Originally posted by xynaria
Adapt or.........

use what you got to it's best advantage perhaps... oops sorry .. isn't that adapting....


YES, if you use it to best advantage... That may mean adding to your skill set. For instance learning to use diferent tools. I personally think there is room for both types of animation but that Traditional will have to capitilize on what it can do diferently. Looking at what people are doing with cell look in CG, it appears that cell look is not going to be diferent enough.


I am certainly not against change, or adapting to different needs, its just that changing from pencil to CG is not in itself addressing the apparent problems, quite the opposite and it's putting people out of work to my mind unjustifiably. that is not denying change.. that is saying perhaps a problem is better addressed than scapegoated.


Of course I agree its the substance/execution thing that matters. I've made that argument many times.

The original argument was over lamenting what esentially is change in an industry. Throwing the name "art" on top of it invokes some kind of higher respect than it would have gained on the marits of the issue alone... namely that methods are evolving. The truth is that its more seamless than it would appear, the evelution has been going on for some time as new methods are adapted and adopted.

Its that we've hit a point where Disney has been slower to modernize than many others, such as Warner Brothers, who have been using methods for ten years (Tiny toons used Amigas to produce 3D models to integrate with 2 D drawing back in 1990 or 91) that Disney was still questioning the utility of at Television animation as late as last year. granted they were testing doing more than tracing printouts, but even doing that would have been a time saver for sets and props. It would have also improved the quality as its way to time consuming to rework the perspective of an animated object frame by frame by hand and the stuff comes out looking really warped many times.

Now they are drawing a line in the sand. Modernize or get left behind. Its a forward looking plan (hopefully only part of a more comprehensive plan that includes quality stories, but hey, perhaps that is why My Peoples is on hold, as they have said.)

[RichSuchy]

Originally posted by The Magic Pen
I think it is a good move for Disney if they want to keep the mouse house alive , but if they would have kept up the tradition of great feature animations like Lion King and Aladin , Little Mermaid then they would never have had a problem . :rolleyes:

Lion King was there biggest best selling film and Treasure planet is like completly opposite of that movie why would they ever think to make it ?? :shame: I liked it but parents want to take there kids to see cute little characters that sing and dance when they go to a disney movie :hmm:

Yeah there is still a market for that but if Disney doesnt, then someone else will hire the old team and take advantage of that. Remember The animators can do thier work for whoever will pay them to. There was a time when Dreamworks paid mid level animators up to around 6k a week! Hopefully they put some of that away for retirement/ investments.

[xynaria]

Originally posted by Rich Suchy


Its that we've hit a point where Disney has been slower to modernize than many others, such as Warner Brothers,

Wasn't it Disney that developed and were using CAPS long before Toonz And Animo hit the boards.

Disney are slow more than anything.... not neccessarily to adpot technology ....as much as ideas perhaps. Before The Little Mermaid they were seen as a spent force giving us that 'instant classic' ...The Rescuers Down Under.. whereas prior to this we had had amongst other things Roger Rabbit. The huge success financially later of The Lion King meant that any thing less was almost seen as a failure. I suspect that the comparative bombing of Treasure Planet is simply that its not an engaing idea and this is where the real problem lies IMHO. Had Toy Story or Ice Age been done traditionally, I doubt they would have suffered that much. Had Treasure Planet been made entirely CG I doubt its box office would have been much better. ' Modernising, surely means having ideas and story lines that capture the imagination which isn't a modern idea at all.. just a possibly relevant one. :)

[RichSuchy]

Originally posted by xynaria
Wasn't it Disney that developed and were using CAPS long before Toonz And Animo hit the boards.

---snip---

Had Toy Story or Ice Age been done traditionally, I doubt they would have suffered that much. Had Treasure Planet been made entirely CG I doubt its box office would have been much better. ' Modernising, surely means having ideas and story lines that capture the imagination which isn't a modern idea at all.. just a possibly relevant one. :)

I dont know about CAPs or even how much of that was hype rather than practice... But I suspect that it wasnt very cost effective compared to buying some amigas, building some sets and tracing printouts on a lightbox. Besides, though features has done a lot (and at high cost) over the years. There is TV animation. If I was to talk too much about that I might get myself into trouble, but thats where I have personal information. so I clam up right here... ;)


As for Toy Story and Treasure Planet...

I think toy story would have flopped if it hadnt been done in CG OR if a company with a track record Like disney at the time wasnt the ones doing the traditional animation.

Not that it would have been good, mind you, but that people would have written it off before giving it a chance. Dreamworks has had some trouble getting an audience using traditional animation AND they did some great stuff.

It was my impression that Treasure planet made extensive use of 3D. Lilo and Stitch at the very least did the surfboards and spaceships and alien hardware using 3D, whiuch was ouput to vector art using a proprietary program (I've used) called INKA. So already Ink and paint is nothing like it once was as far as traditional methods.

[baby]

and 3D will kill 3D

[slaughters]

Originally posted by chui1675
... I love cg, but traditional animation is an artform that teaches the fundamentals of ANY type of animation. Does this mean that traditional animation is a dying artform? Some of the best cg animators started out as traditional animators. I may be crazy, but where in the article does it say, "By CG I mean 3D"?

I've seen plenty of artwork done on CGTalk that look like traditional 2D drawings, but were done on a computer using tablets.

[RichSuchy]

Thats a good point. I saw a wacom flat screen that would work great with some good animation software. Vector drawing programs are getting really good as well. Ive seen one in the hand of an inker. It was really eye opening.

Originally posted by slaughters
I may be crazy, but where in the article does it say, "By CG I mean 3D"?

I've seen plenty of artwork done on CGTalk that look like traditional 2D drawings, but were done on a computer using tablets.

[xynaria]

Originally posted by Rich Suchy
Dreamworks has had some trouble getting an audience using traditional animation AND they did some great stuff.
.
Dreamworks hit paydirt with Prince of Eygpt but before that as Amblin they had 3 flops, partly due to bad marketing as much as anything. Eldorado performed so so and Spirit I doubt lived up to its hopes.....but again you could put that down to not having or finding the tag that would make people connect with the idea enough to want to go and see them.. One thing they have however always realised is the importance of having a crew and developing that crew. Nearly all so called 2D has many 3d elements now.. it isn't in any way wise not to have.. you wanna work with with bicycle pans rather than a seamless BG.. quite.

Slaughters.. you can produce still images with a pen but as for full on drawn animation.. even with ghosting... it's a different beast really. OK South Park is CG though it doesn't look it but the style is very much from simple cut out animation. Trying to do 'Disneyesque' animation with a pen and tablet, whilst not impossible, is not that comfortable either for most.... not that that matters really.. we are talking of a type of animation.. i.e drawn as opposed to modelled and rigged and the way you do each whilst even if the same end result is desired to the extent of using cel shaders on 3D, differs greatly and has different flexibilities. :)

[RichSuchy]

Originally posted by xynaria
One thing they have however always realised is the importance of having a crew and developing that crew. Nearly all so called 2D has many 3d elements now.. it isn't in any way wise not to have.. you wanna work with with bicycle pans rather than a seamless BG.. quite.


I know some very bitter animators who would disagree. In fact A guy I worked with at Disney said they lured Disney people away with loads of promisses about how they were building a company and that they would be a major part of theat company and how much stability they would have... then cut them loose after production.

I personally don't know, and rather than spread the rumor I only include to point out that I've now heard 2 completely diferent tales of keeping a developed crew.

It could be just sour grapes or it could be that people were being paid entirely rediculous sums of money at the time. (post Lion King)

[xynaria]

MMMN.. as Amblin they kept a good percentage of the crew between productions and took a good percentage back over to LA too.. Not many that I know of have come back so I am assuming they are still there. Thing is possibly how well the 'lured from Disney' sat with the rest of the crew. Also if they were being paid well above scale that could have been a factor for not continuing with them. :)

[CGTalk Moderation]

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.