PDA

View Full Version : Disney Feature Animation Going All Digital


RobertoOrtiz
07-23-2003, 02:59 PM
Quote:
"There's trouble in Toontown: They're selling off the desks.

In the Walt Disney Studios' "hat building" - the animation headquarters whose entrance is a towering replica of the Mickey Mouse "Sorcerer's Apprentice" cap - drafting tables have been carted out to make room for computers. Pencils and paper are giving way to mouse pads and styluses. And animators on the Burbank, Calif., lot - those who still have their jobs - have been told to think computer-generated.

Last month, Disney CEO Michael Eisner announced that the studio was developing an unprecedented eight computer-generated animation features. And these are wholly Disney affairs, not Disney-Pixar partnerships, such as the current CG smash Finding Nemo."

Link:

>>Link<< (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/entertainment/6340324.htm)
-R
Thanks to Animated Movies for the tip

Gentle Fury
07-23-2003, 03:22 PM
yet another company blaming a medium for their horrible box office sales.

Peter Reynolds
07-23-2003, 03:48 PM
Do you notice a theme.

BLAME.

Why does no one ever take responsibility?

Could you imagine the captain of the TITANIC saying, "Hey, its not my fault, its not my responsibility. Its those damn workers down in the engine room, and those lazy sods scrubbing the decks. They're all fired! That'll fix the problem."

red_oddity
07-23-2003, 04:03 PM
If Disney thinks the '3D' element in a movie is a substitute for poor story telling then they deserve to go broke...burning and crashing down 500mph at it aswell...

tjnyc
07-23-2003, 05:09 PM
Of course it is a blame game. It doesn't look good to the shareholders and their stock if Disney actually admits fault for declining revenue, blame it on the medium, that is easier to fix and turn around than admitting their part in it. Once Disney starts producing CG animation and find that it hasn't improved their revenue in the box office, they will turn around and blame it on the CG format, by stating that CG has become common place due to the saturation of CG animation onto the big screen, but with Disney churning out 8 films in the next couple of years, guess who will staturate the market, and with mediocre films at that. I am still a fan of the talent behind the animation of Disney films, I just wish the stories and characters weren't so been there, done that. Beautiful animation with bland commercial stories and characters don't really work anymore. A video renter for sure, but not one I would go and see in the theaters.

lildragon
07-23-2003, 05:35 PM
We had such a great discussion here http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76963 thanx to Floyd and now after seeing this I had to plug it again, this could be a very bad trend forming. Do continue.

-lild

MaDSheeP
07-23-2003, 05:44 PM
finally! i don't have to learn how to draw in order to do art! sweet!

/gets shot

Trestkon
07-23-2003, 05:46 PM
I surely hope it's not dead, movies don't have to be 3d to get a message across, or be enjoyable, I mean, would it have made any difference if The Lion King was 3d? I highly doubt it, 2d movies allow more of a focus on story and meaning, instead of just eyecandy.

Of course, as 3d becomes the norm thye will no longer be the eyecandyish hype they are now.

FloydBishop
07-23-2003, 06:03 PM
I was in on an online chat last night with Don Hertzfeldt. ("Rejected", "Billy's Balloon")

http://www.bitterfilms.com/

He and Mike Judge (Beavis and Butthead, King of the Hill, Office Space) have just started a touring animation show called, get this, "The Animation Show". They are taking all kinds of animated films: drawn, cut paper, computer, stop motion, whatever. Their goal is to give animation back to the artists.

There are future plans to sell DVD's as well, with the artists getting paid for their films. Don said his goal is to make it so an artist can survive on the money he makes being an artist, and not have to do commercials and such to pay for the cost of living.

I don't think 2D is dead, or dying, but maybe the executives who have been flooding the market with predictable 2D films have finally decided to stop.

I think you're going to start seeing a lot of shows like the old "Liquid Television", "Cartoon Sushi", and such that used to run on MTV start to surface again.





For more info on the Animation Show, visit their website:

http://www.animationshow.com/

Icepond's planning on having some flims (yes, plural: flims) in the show in the near future.



I just wanted to add that this is a non-exclusive deal if you submit a film. Don said that they encourage artists to put their films in as many places as possible. If you put a film in to their festival, you are free to submit it to any and all other animation festivals as well, as it should be.

Volker
07-23-2003, 06:12 PM
2D is NOT DEAD!!!!!

But....

It does look like it's going into hibernation.

Yes we all know the real problem is with the stories. They suck. One piece of poo after another. I know we all love it when business execs try and get creative.

But....

I think it would be foolish of us to completley discount the fascination that the public has with 3D. If two identical films were produced, one in 2D and one in 3D, I'll bet my bottom dollar that most people would go see the 3D. Why? Because it's new and fresh. People have been seeing 2D for almost 70 years now. You can't blame them!

So what now???

Well, 2D will go into hibernation for a little while. Just like it did before the second golden age with Alladin, B&B, Lion King etc. This isn't the first time that 2D hasn't done well people. And when 3D becomes old hat, 2D will make another grand apearance with a catchy story, and we'll all have to learn to draw again. Consider it the "Circle of Life".

At least through my eyes...

~Zach

MindShell
07-23-2003, 06:12 PM
I think to be a well round artist (cg nerd.) one has to know how to draw/sculpt/animate because those 3 things define movement. From the starting stage of creation knowing how and what moves, as well as having a defined 3d shape in the boundaries of visualization make it allot easier to animate... and make the animation more convincing... and besides 2d animation leaves the work upon the artist to be done. As opposed to filling in the blanks after him... work load wise 2d animation is allot more intensive, but still I think that 2d is allot more effective even though 3d can achieve photo realistic results. There is just more control in 2d animation ... I think that people should stop blaming ... and perhaps re-evaluate their own abilities to do things quickly and efficiently! Finally I just think that people are getting lazy. I mean look at the Disney 2d animation! They have been going down hill in quality for years now in my opinion. BLAH! Now I am rambling. Hope I got the point across.

kex
07-23-2003, 06:13 PM
what have i learnt from disney is that the problem they have is they steal storylines from myths and legends but i gotta give them credit they do make a halve decent film when they do that but all thier storys that are produced by disney are actually really quite bad,

another aspect that shines through is that storys that are based on perfect people as the drawing style never suceeds.

these companies need to rethink how they produce thier movies and yes its a cruel way to remove hand drawn art but its a way of making the people working thier think a little diffrently


all they need is compelling originality that could be thier buzz word for a couple of days.

tjnyc
07-23-2003, 06:14 PM
A recent Directors meeting at Disney;

M. ISNER: Gentlemen, Our stocks are down and are box office revenue is at an all time low. What can we do to change our situtation?

DIR. ANIMATION: I think we need to rethink how we tell our stories and take more risk creatively with our characters, than produce the same commerical driven plots over and over again with the same types of characters...

M. ISNER: Stop right there. I refuse to believe that the public do not want to see a prefectly marketable and brandable characters of say the Little Mermaid rehashed over and over again.

DIR. MAREKTING: We can say that traditional 2D cel animation is just not appealing anymore. That CG is the way to go.

M. ISNER: I like it. It's not our fault, the the medium is just outdated. Work that into a press release.

DIR. BUSINESS: We can also use that as leverage to close our facilities in Paris and the USA and open up shop in let say China, or better yet India.

M. ISNER: I like the way this is going. We can say we are expanding globally. The shareholders will love it.

DIR. MARKETING: And we can release that we will produce 4 CG animation in the next couple of years.

M. ISNER: 4? Do we have to pay overtime in India?

DIR. BUSINESS: No.

M. Isner: Do we have to pay for employment benefits in India?

DIR. BUSINESS: No.

M. ISNER: Make it 8 films in a couple of years.

DIR ANIMATION: Wait. What about story? What about character development?

M. ISNER: Its CG, story and characters are not what people go to the movies for. Now I want you to go back and tell your animation dept to think "CURRY".

MaTaDoR
07-23-2003, 06:17 PM
I didnt read the article but I cant say it would surprise me if disney made this move at all.

I think that alot of companys (maybe disney) have a much broader concept of what they do and the means of achieving that are up for change with the times.. hand drawn animation while some might argue not to be completely dead could probably agree that its not the moneymaker it used to be..

would be great to hear some more opinions, I had a topic questioning what people thought disney would be in 5-10 years and here are some responses..


http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61676

MaTaDoR
07-23-2003, 06:24 PM
oh yea and a friendly reminder for those of you here trying to be 3d animators... it just got ALOT tougher....

dpvtank
07-23-2003, 06:25 PM
Well, 2d is dead because cg is used more and more.

Infact, the trend that started as 3d computer graphics grew, was almost amazing. People started seeing these new worlds which they had never seen before, and it was all 3d!

People suddenly realized that 3d looks and feels a lot better then 2d. So, companies noticed that and started moving to more 3d stuff.
As more exposure was given to 3d work, and 2d movies were being drifted away, more and more people wanted 3d..

ofcourse we cannot blame those studios that made those 3d films. Hey, they also need their bread the butter and they just started a new revolution, but they are PARTLY to blame for it.

the audience is tired of 2d after seeing something better. Therefore, they are ASSUMING, that now all 2d is crap.

Personally, Lion King is going to be my favourite non-live action film. (thats what its called right?)

Cinematography
07-23-2003, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Gentle Fury
yet another company blaming a medium for their horrible box office sales.
:beer:

Are they really that stupid?
:annoyed:


This is the problem:
1) Stupid ass stories!

2) Too much 3D integrated with the 2D. By doing this, you are making the 2D look 'not as good', and you're destroying the purity of the 2D.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And let’s not forget that Disney and DreamWorks aren't the ONLY companies working in the animation business. There are some companies that are dedicated to nothing but 2D hand drawn animation.

Goon
07-23-2003, 06:40 PM
lol cinematography. I know you have this thing about pure 2d artforms, but refusing to have 3d elements in a film just because is ridiculous. Its a matter of telling a story, and if the 3d can be integrated in such a way that it does not disrupt the visual appearance of the film, why not do so? The great mouse detective, I never knew that that was 3d gears in the clock tower until years later (it just didnt occur to my pre-pubescent mind), it blended so well. Spirited Away, excellent cg integration, same with Lilo and Stitch. The artform is the visual style, not what method you use to create it. That is the equivalent of saying mediums such as charcoal and pencil should not be combined, but the end result is what is on the canvas, and it is by purely technical reasoning that you choose what tool you wish to use to get there.

Iron Giant: could that have been done without 3d? Yes, but it would have looked like crap! 2d artists cannot handle complex and rigid 3d deformations without uselessly expending insane amounts of time, the computer is extremely useful here and should not be discounted. To act in such a way is to actually limit the freedom of the artist to create.

Admittedly how it is done should be handled with great care. 2d due to its limitations has to be quite simple. The integration used in Sinbad and Treasure planet had far too detailed texture mapping which instantly contrasted with the characters. Plus the exhorbant camera movements not only gave the animators a difficult task (and wasted huge amounts of money on stuff like the captain's mechanical arm), but partially ruined the 2dness of the films. So to an extent i agree with you, but only so far.

cosmonaut
07-23-2003, 06:50 PM
I love 2d animation .... but ... let's not forget what Disney is, a business. Currently 3d is making studios a lot more money than 2d (minus FF and Disney's own crappy 3d entry Dinosaur). Business execs see that and want to make as much money as possible, since that's there job. I also like old silent films (espeically Buster Keaton) and black white movies but both of those were overtaken by better technology. When the talkies came around all the silent film stars protested, and most of them lost their jobs to people better suited to the new techology. Certainly 2d and 3d are different mediums so it's not quite the same (though I'm not sure the general public sees it that way). It's sad but it's the way it is. The general public is simply drawn to the more appealing technology. Since that's what the public will PAY to see that's what the studios (with the exception of the more artistically inclined) will produce. FF certainly proved that a bad story can't save a 3d movie but if you were to make the same movie in 2d and 3d, the 3d would easily bring in more money. I've been wondering for the last few years whether 2d would be driven out by 3d. I always hoped they could coexist since I enjoy both but the reality is that maybe they won't. I sure hope I'm wrong.

jeb
07-23-2003, 06:53 PM
studios need to make more films like my neighbour totoro. japanese people are the cool ones now in 2d animation.

And that last one with the pirates its like 80% 3d and that takes all the emotion of watching cool animation made by hand

Ryan-B
07-23-2003, 07:03 PM
2D films will continue to be made, but I doubt you will see many $100 million budgets.

I'm looking forward to some of the original 2D stuff that's coming, such as The Triplettes of Belleville (http://www.lestriplettesdebelleville.com/)

dpvtank
07-23-2003, 07:03 PM
I quite agree. Anime still heavily realies on 2d artwork. And currently, its the anime which is popular 2d stuff, not movies by disney and such.

tjnyc
07-23-2003, 07:13 PM
I too agree that business is business, but it can't be concluded that dropping traditonal 2D will make better business for Disney? That is what is assumed, but Disney's recent bombs are a fact of bad stories and bland characters and not on 2D. FF was a great visual breakthrough, but it had a weak story and soulless characters and it bomb in the theaters. What 2D needs is more stylized work like the articles states. Don't know if it will attract audiences, but it could create a new wave of killer 2D animation that stretches the artform to newer expression of creativity and depth that Disney has never and will never go, due to the fact that they are a business. So maybe it is the only thing Disney can do, dropping 2D. It is sad, but if Disney hasn't the courage to resurge the 2d artform, there are those with creative vision who will.

dpvtank
07-23-2003, 07:15 PM
I guess the actual look of 2d doesnt matter..there are really good artists out there....just a solid story is in order.

and good publicity.

baby
07-23-2003, 07:18 PM
I really though that 2D was just going to be sleeping for a few years, just to give time to people to be fed up with Cg movies, and realize that it's just a medium.
Can U tell me what was the point of making Ice Age in 3D ?!? huuu.... well the point was making a 3D movie...(so we took jungle book mixed it with lion King and adding 3D...)
So yeah now studio are thinking 3D for 3D...and not 3D because of artistic purpose or a tool that would help for specific reasons or whatever...



then I just though of video games...


DO U sometimes remember when we were playing 2D games...that was so cool...we would say it will never die...
haaaa amiga...

then 3D games...

and it seems that 2D games are burried for ever now... :thumbsdow :hmm:



don't want this to happen to animation... :annoyed:

d4rk
07-23-2003, 07:34 PM
David Stainton, president of Walt Disney Feature Animation, counters: "I don't think it's about replacing one technique with another technique. I want to think about us as an animation studio. Not as a 2-D animation studio, not as a 3-D animation studio, but as an animation studio that really can do it all.

http://animated-movies.squareworld.com/News.html

Interesting to hear what those people got to say about it.

*edit: oh yeah read the part on how Mickey is going 3d as well. Coincidence? You be the judge.

WhiteBlaizer
07-23-2003, 07:36 PM
2d will never die...

Today and tomorrow the "look" of the animations that pretends to be 2d will be ever 3d. The look of 2d is impossible to imitate with a crappy 3d, although the 3d models were superb to the profane people.

An example is the anime. I have seen some works in 3d that seems to be manga/anime but its a nice 3d but no more, it isn't like the anime or manga. The traditional anime/animation have more expresivity that 3d, and in the most cases, 2d won't never passed into 3d due to design issues (remember that you can draw all lines as you want in 3d... you will understand it if u are a pro, then no)

Ghost in the shell: Stand alone complex, intro sux sux is a crappy 3d, but his traditional is very nice. Other example is that in Sinbad, the look of the 3d composition is too different to traditional. I prefer traditional animation with notable diference. 3d will never imitate the art of cartoons.

Can anyone of this forum... a lot of talent no?... do cell from dragon ball? or Goku with a cel shaded with the same look of the anime?? huuhh?? nobody yet, and i say that anybody can't... can you? demonstrate me plz... it would be an excellent challenge. I have only saw huge craps of kids of average ages (excuse me for the expresion)

Pixar, disney and others, only wants to reduce costs. A profesional of drawing and designing is a profesional in extinction, a pro that is too hard to find, due to that most people can't draw, design, or do creative and artistic content. 3d is a thing that somebody can do with a few months of training and mastering. It is not a secret that few ones can do... 2d is a quality that not all people can do.

It's a mistake to believe that 2d animation will die to give pass to 3d... the world of 2d animation is not the same of 3d.

I don't like the look of the 3d things of the new films from Dreamworks and similar such his latest and crappy film for kids.

PokeChop
07-23-2003, 07:50 PM
I don't know. I thought Disney's CG movie, Dinosaur, the quality at least, was actually quite good, like the fur on the lemers, wow. Now don't get me wrong, the story was weak. But I think if Disney can create that same kind of quality in these upcoming movies they produce without Pixar, I think everyone will be surprised, as long as the stories are as strong as the animation. I mean how about if you took Lilo and Stitch and created that in 3D? Lilo and Stitch actually got pretty good box office sales. Now, what if Disney originally made it 3D? Could they have doubled their box office sales just from being 3D? I think so, because like everyone is mentioning here, it's today's trend. Disney just wants to jump on the profit bandwagon too, just like Pixar. I think the question Disney is probably asking themselves is "Why did it take us this long to make the switch to 3D?"

Flog
07-23-2003, 07:56 PM
If Disney thinks the '3D' element in a movie is a substitute for poor story telling then they deserve to go broke...burning and crashing down 500mph at it aswell...

Well alot of Disney movies were not half bad, Lilo And Stitch was good. Treasure Planet was a good movie, but just didn't get the cinema heads. Don't know why, but it just happened that way.

Marketting I guess. Adult cartoons are not as popular in the US as in other parts of the world. And if its a serious looking cartoon like Treasure Planet or Sinbad I think it turns audiences off, both movies were good.

I don't know where 2d is headed but I think its all about marketting the product correctly, knowing the audience and going from there.

Geckopunk83
07-23-2003, 08:00 PM
"a hunch that kids now find hand-drawn animation uncool"

hmm...lilo and stitch,beauty and the beast,robin hood,cinderella,emperor's new groove,alice in wonderland,jungle book,iron giant,secret of nimh,who framed roger rabbit?....loony tunes....these are all cool. why? because they are all GOOD!

the best things disney has done in the past few years that were 2d imo have been lilo and stich,and emperor's new groove..and it wasnt because they were 2d,its because they were well done and enjoyable to watch.

I do think personally that they should take a look back to the start of it all..snow white,sleeping beauty,cinderella...among several others were and still are and always will be classics.once again not because they were 2d,but because they were GOOD,damn good. what disney cartoon lately has had a villian as hardcore as the witch in snow white? or the queen in sleeping beauty? and they wernt afraid to actually KILL the bad guy/girl in the end. if they did snow white nowadays the witch would probably end up as the dwarves personal maid *with hilarious results*...
but disney instead has decided to do a bunch of straight to video sequals that arent par with the original (once again imo) and a mediocre flick for the theatres or 2, turn around and blame the pens and ink instead of the fact that they arent making things that are interesting enough to make people want to give up a bunch of money to see.

These are my opinions but im sure im not alone...when companies start making movies with mediocre storylines in 3D and the thrill of it wears off are the companies going to blame the software?

Glasko
07-23-2003, 08:03 PM
They need to bring back that classic-type musicals. Aladdin, the Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid... all brilliant musicals that kids loved and still love. They haven't done a good one for some time now. They should hire me to write a script with all the music, I'd get them back on track.

samgrice
07-23-2003, 08:14 PM
disney have not produced a decent (animated) film in years. All their work is just over-americanized kiddy drible. 2d (and prob 3d) animation needs to go in the direction of japanise anime. This does not mean sex and violence (although such content could be included), but more sophisticated story's and characters. aniamtion aimed at a teen/adult audience is the way of the future for american productions, any anime fan will tell you just how good those could be with american money behind them. (blood the last vampire, for example was only 45mins long because of budget)

films like the matrix have opened lots of new peoples minds to this idea, and i'm sure there is a big enough market for animation aimed at a mature audience with sophisticated plots.

Just how cool would it be to see Die Hard, The Terminator or Gangs of New York in full budget animated fun?

CourtJester
07-23-2003, 08:21 PM
2D will go into a Dark Ages commercially... but all that means is that it's being left to the people who do it because they LOVE it. Bad for volume... but great for quality IMO.

Commercial death does not mean outright death. We haven't used horses for over a century now, but I've got a friend who loves blacksmithing.

Moreover, this is merely American commercial 2D going into a coma here... so that just leaves the field open to practitioners worldwide, most notably the Japanese. It's a world market, bigger than Disney and Dreamworks. Again, is that such a bad thing?

On the flip side, I doubt there will be a 3D "backlash"... I've been hearing about such since 1997 and depending on how you look at it, it is either never going to happen -- or should have happened ages ago. "Effects-driven" applies as easily to plotless 1980's blastfest loaded with practical explosions, stunts etc. as it does modern CGI "effects" films.

There will likely be a "backlash" in the arts community comparable to the rebellion of vinyl against CD's, analog vs. digital etc. but that won't affect much outside of it... until someone's awesome work gets "discovered" and a renaissance happens.

3D can't "kill" 2D any more than movies killed painting.

tjnyc
07-23-2003, 08:22 PM
One of the reason why anime works is because it is preceived as being stylized and daring, something for everyone, but with a style that is cool. It has a very different market preception than Disney films. Probably, why Atlantis and Treasure Planet marketing didn't attract. Disney does not equal stylized and edgy, but traditional, fairy tale, kiddie films. They are a victim of their own marketing, and that will be hard for them to break from. Lilo & Stitch had a different style and a very good story, but it didn't stray far from their market perception.

I would still like to see Disney animators doing more edgier stuff, I think they are very talented, but under a different name. A branched out smaller studio maybe, with their own marketing, branding and style, so they won't be pigeon-holed into the trappings of Disney's marketing.

dbach
07-23-2003, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by Goon
lol cinematography. I know you have this thing about pure 2d artforms, but refusing to have 3d elements in a film just because is ridiculous. Its a matter of telling a story, and if the 3d can be integrated in such a way that it does not disrupt the visual appearance of the film, why not do so? The great mouse detective, I never knew that that was 3d gears in the clock tower until years later (it just didnt occur to my pre-pubescent mind), it blended so well. Spirited Away, excellent cg integration, same with Lilo and Stitch. The artform is the visual style, not what method you use to create it. That is the equivalent of saying mediums such as charcoal and pencil should not be combined, but the end result is what is on the canvas, and it is by purely technical reasoning that you choose what tool you wish to use to get there.

Iron Giant: could that have been done without 3d? Yes, but it would have looked like crap! 2d artists cannot handle complex and rigid 3d deformations without uselessly expending insane amounts of time, the computer is extremely useful here and should not be discounted. To act in such a way is to actually limit the freedom of the artist to create.

Admittedly how it is done should be handled with great care. 2d due to its limitations has to be quite simple. The integration used in Sinbad and Treasure planet had far too detailed texture mapping which instantly contrasted with the characters. Plus the exhorbant camera movements not only gave the animators a difficult task (and wasted huge amounts of money on stuff like the captain's mechanical arm), but partially ruined the 2dness of the films. So to an extent i agree with you, but only so far.


I totaly agree!

I would like to add the ballroom shot from beauty and the beast to the list of examples, I would also like to say that above and beyond having straight cg in a film it can be used as an additional tool for the artist to use when a particularly difficult shot comes up. They can print the cg footage and have the animators "trace" over it with the end result being that it matches the traditional style exactly.

-Don

Redf
07-23-2003, 08:31 PM
It was all inevitable.you got to follow with the flow,you really have no choice.:)

Racer
07-23-2003, 08:31 PM
2D is most certainly not dead. Saying that 3D animation will replace 2D animation is like saying that sculptures replace paintings. They are 2 very different things with different styles, strengths and weaknesses.

I am very interested in 2D animation, my father was a professional illustrator who was looking at working for Disney for a time. When I was around 14 years old (1994), he introduced me to Japanese animation (which I was very sceptical of at first) but soon fell in love with the drawing style and the freedom from animation being just for kids- you can put everything in an 'R' rated film in an animated feature just as easily.

All these years later I am no longer an 'anime' fan like I once was, but I still really like works from Hayao Miyazaki and projects like 'Blood: the last vampire'. I am just finishing up school, animation major at a school that teaches 3D animation. I actually want to do 2D animation but the freedom that 3D suppliments can provide 2D animation (such as the camera movements in Blood: the last vampire or Disney's Tarzan or extended background animation capabilities like the crowd in Disney's Hunchback) are very exciting and I am persuing that.

A previous post made an excellent point when referring to The Iron Giant. It could have been done all in 2D, but would have been very laborious and very difficult. They went to great extents to make sure that the 3D elements blended well with the 2D elements and I would say that they did an excellent job of it.

There is a purpose for every medium. In the long run, 3D will replace the 2D counterparts that should have been done in 3D to begin with and that's fine. Photography replaced portrait artists but people still draw and paint people...it's a matter of what you are going for and what is appropriate.


Samgrice really said it best above though. I am not sad in the least to see Disney go- they have been hoarding too much talent and producing too much mindless commercial works with more emphasis on marketing happymeal toys and videos than the works themselves. Someone else will pick up the torch, it's just a matter of time.

GrooVn
07-23-2003, 08:45 PM
I think that 2D won't completely die. It will be used in an artistic format, but for large pictures. I think that it will die. 3D is getting closer and closer to imitating it, and I think that all of the large studios will eventually get rid of their 2D departments.

I personally think that it is sad, and I have a lot of friends who work in 2d who think that it is inevitable. But, why would you keep doing it if you can make it look the same, do it quicker, and have less labour doing it. I know 3D isn't there yet, but it is getting there. Look at the quality of Disney's Atlantis.

cosmonaut
07-23-2003, 08:46 PM
I agree that Dinosaur was visually very well done and Disney certainly has the talent to do good a good 3d film. Also, a lot people here seem to forget that Disney has been in the 3d game from the beginning, making 50% of the profits (I think) off of the pixar movies while also splitting the development cost. Though with the end of the current contract and all the leverage pixar has to negotiate, Disney more 3d on their own isn't surprising.

Also, I personally am not a fan of anime and don't think it's commercially viable outside of Japan. I also am not sure 2d is just going in to a "commercial dark age." Making a QUALITY 2D animated FILM is such as large undertaking and requires so much money that unless you're talking about a government subsidy I don't see too many getting made in the near future.

Gilgamesh
07-23-2003, 08:48 PM
I think that a lot of people are beginning to believe that 2D was a link in the evolution of animation, and 3d is the next obvious step. Much in the way that silent films were cool at the time, but who wants to watch one now?
I think thats a bad way to look at it. Cell animation is definately a precurser to 3d, but it wont be replaced by it, or it shouldn't be. Talkies replaced silent films, but that is because they expanded on the media. Once filmmakers could use sound, they had that much more control over their vision. The difference is that I don't see 3D as an expanded media, but rather as an entirely different one.
Even if 2D goes underground, it's the style that will survive, even if it is less popular, because you will never get 3D to look like 2D. I don't mean fancy cell shaders; as far as actual animation goes, you can't get any more free than hand drawn. There are no restrictions in 2D, beyond the imagination.

dooom
07-23-2003, 09:20 PM
anime is a plague. their animations are below par, and there is no way any american or non asian can get into a japanese studio. as for the art style of anime it is formulated and todays youth copy the shyte out of it. im not discrediting anime it just annoys me to know end that people think that asian anime is superior to western animations. as for disney closing its doors on 2d animation they can get bent. it seems to be the general census that disney no longer provides provoking stories but thats not to say that the execution is sub par, there is a shift to 3d and for good reason, its new and ppl want to see it. oh yea and a friendly reminder for those of you here trying to be 3d animators... it just got ALOT tougher.... listen up folks this is the bottom line, im a 3d student at digipen and the freshman class is growing exponentially each year. 2d artists everywhere are goin back to school to make the shift to 3d. im not even in the industry yet but im scared to death of where its going. forgive me if i insulted anyone we are all a little disturbed by this rash of vaginitis of studio execs.

meditation to winger is good for the soul :buttrock:

phoenix
07-23-2003, 09:27 PM
i dont think cel animation should vanish........


its the best thing thats out there..................


3d will evolve in to sometihng else......but cel would stay the same old fashion:D

DigiLusionist
07-23-2003, 09:29 PM
My daughters (4 and 7) love 2D. On television. They seem to prefer going to the 3D movies when we go to the theaters. A couple of exceptions, but for the most part, they call 2D "cartoons," and 3D "animation."

Infer from that what you will. Seems to be a growing perception.

phoenix
07-23-2003, 09:31 PM
i agree with DigiLusionist thats way everywhere...........new perception.......

dpvtank
07-23-2003, 09:33 PM
once again, what people dont realise is that, yes, lion king and others were classic, but at that time, there was no better medium to tell such a story except 2d. (yeah, a live action movie with lions playing out this story...lol)...

today, since people have had a taste of 3d, 2d art is becoming boring to them. That is just my opinion.

cgwolf
07-23-2003, 09:36 PM
Ugh, the last thing I needed to find out today was that yet another studio decided to join Dreamworks in failing to realize the fault in their bombing 2d Animation productions lies with THEIR STORY AND CHARACTER DESIGN in their OWN departments...NOT the medium. And of all people..Walt DISNEY's studios!! (Talk about turning over in your grave) If Walt were alive today there would be MASS FIRINGS. There is no other reason for failing traditional cell animation. Too many people love "cartoons" as I heard it called to not want to see it.

The REAL problem is that people are getting too used to seeing the same bland, generic characters in most 2d movies with exception to movies like Lilo and Stitch and Spirited away, which both were excellent. Bad/Rehashed/uninteresting stories like Titan AE, El Dorado, Atlantis, Sinbad etc....just hurt 2D and make people stay away from that studios animation until its done right.

Trust me, when a studio comes along utilizing digital 2D animators(to save on costs), real voice actors (Not only Big name actors) implementing fresh stories and original ideas and styles...it will prove both Dreamworks and Disney wrong...and do extremely well....again, people love 2d animation, but are burnt out on poor scripts and unoriginal characters and ideas.

Derlaine
07-23-2003, 09:53 PM
deleted text because i can't delete the post

GRMac13
07-23-2003, 10:03 PM
Walt is turning over in his grave. 2D is hardly "dead" as some of these execs keep saying. I agree with those who blame the stories rather than the medium. These films would have bombed in 3D as well. IMO, another problem with alot of these films, besides the weak storylines, is the bland character design. With the exception of Lilo and Stitch, all of these films have the same, rehashed, boring character design we have been seeing for about 10 years now. If they want to stay afloat, and compete with the big CG films, they need to take a seriously consider the "look" of their films.

One of these articles mentioned that the studios were seeking to attract a male teenage audience with thier recent films. This is something relatively new in (American) animation, as most films are geared toward a younger crowd. So I ask you this: If you want to attract older kids, why rely on the same style you used for the films that were aimed at younger children? I swear, Sinbad looked like a skinnied up version of the Genie from Alladin. This is just proof that these studios are so preoccupied with making money that they are missing the most obvious flaws in thier products. Disney (and Dreamworks) have such an immense amount of talent at their disposal, and yet they hardly ever give them any chance to spread thier wings. They are afraid of taking risks on design because certain styles have worked for them in the past. So now that their last few films have bombed, they just throw the baby out with the bathwater. Disney used be a studio that took risks (esp while Walt was still alive). They practially invented animation, and certainly perfected it, but now they have turned into a money-hungry behemoth bent on dominating the world of animation by hook or by crook (pun intended).

I tend to be optimistic about alot of things. So I'm hoping that someone inside Disney will have an epiphany and relaize exactly what needs to be imporoved to make for a successful film. Maybe by changing mediums it will spark something in these guys that they couldn't see before.

However 2D will never go away, and as others have said, now that the big studios are out of the loop, it's up to individual artists who love thier craft to keep the medium alive. Guaranteed we will see some new and refreshing 2D projects this way. Bill Plympton, for example, is creating a new animated feature. People like him, whose work is not dictated by commercial success, are the reason 2D will continue to survive, thrive and eventually come back with a vengence.

peterpro
07-23-2003, 10:07 PM
2d is what anime is, and it's big in japan.

it wont be disappearing, we will always see this medium.
=)

If it's done on a computer or by hand and paper,
economics will dictate how it winds up being created.

thats why it's sent overseas.

=)
even cheaper than digital.

FloydBishop
07-23-2003, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by Derlaine
...has this canadian( or american) dude working on it in Production IG. He was on the Blue Sky team that did Bunny i believe and he graduated from Ringling (or some big name art school) ...so i guess he's an exception. But hey , not impossible! There's an article on him online somewhere.


That would be Justin Leach, who left while we were in production on "Ice Age". You can see an article on Justin here:

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/feature.php?id=148

If you send him an email, tell him Floyd and Tom from Icepond said "hello".

samgrice
07-23-2003, 10:18 PM
Japanese animation is superior to American animation; in the same way that Japanese cinema is superior to American cinema. They’re both a lot more thought provoking, daring and sometimes intelligent, it’s just that most of the time they suffer from budget problems. The 2d industry in America might not end up like Japan, but they’ve got to at least try, can anyone think of an American animation that was aimed at a mature audience? I didn’t think so. (I would like someone to prove me wrong)

American 2d animation has got to stop trying to sell snow white for the millionth time.

Technofreak
07-23-2003, 10:18 PM
i think disney is seeing where the trend is going so i dont blame
them for going into cg as mainstream.....

one thing that ppl forget i think is that now with toonshading
a studio can give the look of 2d while still having many more
options in the 3d world.....so really it is their choice to keep
it in their style....and it gives them the option to do much more
than it would doing it the traditional way

i doubt the word 'story' was ever involded in their decission

samgrice: ever seen spawn ? :) [no not the live action movie]

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0780620003.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

or heavy metal

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004WG2B.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

ivo D
07-23-2003, 10:23 PM
so many movies..are all like they are drawn.. like sinbad of dreamworks.. but its all like drawn stuff..almost..,but i think its al 3d toon shaded.

and you cant see it really.. its ther but not to much.. and i find it great.. and it gives the makers lot more time to do other stuff..because drawing is a lot more time consuming..

and you see it from the beginning. i think lion king.. prince of egypt etc.. they wher all using it a little.. and it gave it some extra thing.. some more reall live toony styl..


my opinion is that toons,, will come closer to the public.. more human, but still toony..

they are al among us?!?!?!;)

mark_wilkins
07-23-2003, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by MindShell
I think to be a well round artist (cg nerd.) one has to know how to draw/sculpt/animate because those 3 things define movement.

But movement does not define art!

Many exceptionally good 3D lighters I know are not exceptional painters, and many exceptional "cg nerds" I know are not exceptional artists at all!

-- Mark

mark_wilkins
07-23-2003, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by cgwolf
Ugh, the last thing I needed to find out today was that yet another studio decided to join Dreamworks

Disney went there first, by about a year.

-- Mark

Gamoron
07-23-2003, 10:33 PM
2d is dead here not there. All I can say is, thankfully there is anime. Because 2D still looks cool to me.

samgrice
07-23-2003, 10:36 PM
Technofreak: yeah but i thought they were joint efforts with japan? the guy that did rugrats made a adult animation, abit like trinity from the matrix. but he's japanese.

still though only 2 films from a whole country's (and a big soding country) industry is pretty lame.

mark_wilkins
07-23-2003, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by GRMac13
If you want to attract older kids, why rely on the same style you used for the films that were aimed at younger children?

This is (I'm guessing) the crux of the matter, not "blame 2D."

In my opinion, the problem is that other than an extreme minority of anime fans who are overrepresented in this forum, 2D means "kiddie fodder" to American audiences, which are the largest market for movies worldwide.

Is this fair? No. Does it mean the art isn't valid? No. Does it mean that when a 2D movie does badly that it has a bad story? Not necessarily. Does it mean that the medium is to blame when the movie fails? Only the perception of the medium, not the medium itself.

Let me put it this way: A weak film like Pocahontas made well over $120 million in 1995, when Treasure Planet and Sinbad, both of which were stronger as movies and in animation (which, if you will recall, had a VERY rotoscoped feel on Pocahontas), failed to reach $40 million domestic. Something is different now.

Part of this is probably the migration of taste, part of it is probably the impact of a long string of not-so-hot 2D animated movies (broken up by great ones like Mulan, Tarzan, and Lilo and Stitch,) and part of it is just that 2D animation had a great few years in the public eye and people have moved on.

If you really want someone to blame (I don't, I just want to work on movies that people like) then blame those people who slap the "kiddie movie" label on anything done with 2D animation. Hint: look to your left and to your right, and there will probably be two of them sitting there.

-- Mark

noisewar
07-23-2003, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by samgrice
Japanese animation is superior to American animation; in the same way that Japanese cinema is superior to American cinema. They’re both a lot more thought provoking, daring and sometimes intelligent, it’s just that most of the time they suffer from budget problems. The 2d industry in America might not end up like Japan, but they’ve got to at least try, can anyone think of an American animation that was aimed at a mature audience? I didn’t think so. (I would like someone to prove me wrong)

American 2d animation has got to stop trying to sell snow white for the millionth time.


You are sooooo wrong.

American animation, and much of underground European and South American animation, is among the most experimental, groundbreaking animation there is. Japanese animation and cinema are in fact bloated by shoddy anime and very very poor storytelling. Japanese writing is just terrible with few exceptions.

The problems is the American culture, which tend to clusterf**k around the latest fads and fashions, whereas the Japanese are willing to experience something new, even revel in it. Great American animators will never get their experimental work recognized until studio execs say "yeah ok, that's cool. everyone under 21, please realize this is the next big thing." Just look at out music industry. Do you have any idea how many pioneering music groups here find their biggest fan base in Japan? It's shameful. Anything from Garth Brooks to Alphaville to death metal band Nile find cult folllowings across the seas.

And Peter Chung, who did Aeon Flux, is not Japanese. He's Chinese, trained at CalArts here.

Outside Akira, Ghost in the Shell, and anything by Hayao Miyazaki, there has not been a single anime film worthy of critical cinematic praise. And if there is one, I don't know about, I guarantee you it has at least one gratuitous panty shot of a twelve year old girl and/or a battle mech with hight-tech-looking fins.

noisewar
07-23-2003, 11:04 PM
Oh my bad... there is one great work of anime...

ANIMATRIX! Hmm... well now every story but one seems to have been written, co-directed, or produced by two very American brothers who bring some decent writing into it.

Then again we could always let the Japanese tell us what to write... sure made Final Fantasy the movie a classic.

goatrape
07-23-2003, 11:12 PM
I love 2d and I always will, it is just sad that how corporate money making can ruin an artform. Its not Disney's or Dreamwork's fault for bailing out on it. As mentioned in a previous post they need to make money too, so they go with the trend.

It is just that today's audiences are having a gradually shorter attention span. 3d effects/ animation is so flashy, shiney and relatively new that 2d seems boring to the general audience. But all 3d art and animation starts with an idea or gesture on paper... or yes even Photoshop.

GRMac13
07-23-2003, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by mark_wilkins
This is (I'm guessing) the crux of the matter, not "blame 2D."

In my opinion, the problem is that other than an extreme minority of anime fans who are overrepresented in this forum, 2D means "kiddie fodder" to American audiences, which are the largest market for movies worldwide.

Is this fair? No. Does it mean the art isn't valid? No. Does it mean that when a 2D movie does badly that it has a bad story? Not necessarily. Does it mean that the medium is to blame when the movie fails? Only the perception of the medium, not the medium itself.

Let me put it this way: A weak film like Pocahontas made well over $120 million in 1995, when Treasure Planet and Sinbad, both of which were stronger as movies and in animation (which, if you will recall, had a VERY rotoscoped feel on Pocahontas), failed to reach $40 million domestic. Something is different now.

Part of this is probably the migration of taste, part of it is probably the impact of a long string of not-so-hot 2D animated movies (broken up by great ones like Mulan, Tarzan, and Lilo and Stitch,) and part of it is just that 2D animation had a great few years in the public eye and people have moved on.

If you really want someone to blame (I don't, I just want to work on movies that people like) then blame those people who slap the "kiddie movie" label on anything done with 2D animation. Hint: look to your left and to your right, and there will probably be two of them sitting there.

-- Mark

Well that was sort of my point (although you said it much more clearly).

Instead of trying to incorporate new styles into their films using the same medium, they instead are simply disregarding the medium entirely. The point I was trying to get at in my argument is that I believe that Disney and the like can overcome this slump by A) improving thier film's from the concept stage (story, themes, etc.) and B) introducing an entirely new 2D animated style instead of relying on the same tired designs (it worked with Lilo and Stitch). If they would put all of thier amazing talent to good use, I guarantee they could create something that would make anime look like cave-drawings.

BTW, I am not a huge fan of anime as a "genre". The stories tend to be either very weak and predictable or very odd and inaccessible to non-Eastern audiences. There are a few exceptions of course.

Also, I find many of thier character designs to be just as predictable and conventional as Disney and Dreamworks' characters are. You can only have so many schoolgirls, gigantic eyes, and enormous walking mechanized robots (who knew something as odd as that would be so insanely overdone).

grafikdon
07-23-2003, 11:23 PM
It is ridiculous to think that 3D will shove 2D down the drain. These are two different mediums,the problem with 2D is nothing but lack of diversity. We have been bombarded with a load of predictable laugh-off-your-butt 2D movies. When are we going to see 2D movies like Water Ship Down? I swear I caught myself crying the first time I saw that movie.
The present 2D movies are obviously devoid of these qualities and that is why they seem to be taking the big plunge not because 3D has joined the band. Nowadays the 2D movies show up in 'Happy meal' and 'Burger king theaters' before hitting the real theaters...sheesh...what happened to good old diversity? Why should everything become a boring ,predictable, happy-meal
oriented, kiddy-kiddy, laugh-off-your-but bullcrap? I care less if Disney wants to pulverize the 2D department, I was just wondering what took them too long. Pardon my harsh tone but I felt betrayed when Disney started to come out with a bunch of crap, this is a copmpany that inspired me with their movies that had lasting values but all of a sudden...whaaam!!! It was a down pour of predictable,identical nonesense. Let 'em shove off and pave way for people who will show the world that 2D animation can be just as serious or funny as any live action movie and that we do not need Billy Crystal, Eddie Murphy, Brad Pitt and Burger king to make a 2D movie that will stand the test of time.

Oh and I forgot to mention that the last Disney Movie I saw was Emperor's New Groove. Dreamworks...the less said the better, the only decent 2D film they made was Prince of Egypt. WB...ummm...I wonder what went wrong. Sony...but wait! Are they into 2d anyway.

Goon
07-23-2003, 11:24 PM
there is a LOT of crap in anime, namely junk like THIS!!!!1 (http://www.devilbunnies.org/pictures/anime-no-otaku.jpg). That is not original in the least. There are too many fans that draw in the style that is the rage, and too many studios that do the same thing. Anime is a business, it is designed to make money, usually by the easiest means possible, ie. ripping off whatever original/succesful show just made waves. There are gems amongst the mass produced fodder, just as there are here in both film and cartoons (which is all that american mainstream animation is). Give it credit and be prepared to sift through alotajunk.

Teyon
07-23-2003, 11:29 PM
If anyone doubts that 2D animation can still hold its own against 3D (and in many casees, wax its ass) they have but to look at any of Hayao Miyazaki's work. Kiki's Delivery Service, Spirited Away, these are the kinds of stories missing in American 2D animation. We usually just spew out retellings of fairy tales (or rewrite classic novels) when somebody wants to do a 2D feature film. A lot of my problem with animation, both 2D and 3D, is where are the original stories? So many shorts fly through here with original ideas but these people end up in jobs where they get stuck retelling things instead of making things. I think that's what's killing 2D. The public has finally caught on to it...they just are so dazzled by 3D that they haven't realized the same thing may be happening there.

Shrek was a retelling of the children's picturebook (with a few changes). Pixar is keeping things going by producing new content and Square tried but who's doing this for 2D in the US? We have all this talent and power, why waste it telling things we've already told? If there's anything the Japanese and Korean animation companies have on us, it's that they try new things more often and we tend to go with what's safe. If anything kills 2D animation, I think that will be it and if we continue on that road, 3D won't be far behind.

samgrice
07-23-2003, 11:39 PM
god, i hope this dosn't turn into a bitching spree about anime vs disney (although that would make a kick-ass film). but i was mainly refering to mainstream animation on both sides. i'm sorry but the BEST that japan has to offer beats the BEST america has to offer. oh and i'm really sorry about the Peter Chung thing, i really hate it when people get chinese/japanese muddled up.

Outside Akira, Ghost in the Shell, and anything by Hayao Miyazaki, there has not been a single anime film worthy of critical cinematic praise. And if there is one, I don't know about, I guarantee you it has at least one gratuitous panty shot of a twelve year old girl and/or a battle mech with hight-tech-looking fins.
You are sooooooooooooo wrong:

Yeah there is alot of japanese tosh, but thereis a hell of a lot to offer other than Aira and G.I.T.S, (metropolis, blood, ninja scroll, perfect blue, neon genesis, princess monokoe and spirited away.) to name but a few. (because its so damn hard to get hold of stuff in the west) that last one by the way won an oscar i believe.

Teyon
07-23-2003, 11:42 PM
Yes! Metropolis, and Blood (why isn't there a sequel, it's too damned short!?) are among the best of anime. Ninja Sroll, while great artistically, left a bit lacking in story I thought. Cool characters though.

Schwinnz
07-23-2003, 11:47 PM
I'm going to print this article and put it in a frame. Later I'll say to my grandchilds :

"You see that ? Well it's the day I lost all respect in one of the best traditional movie company..."

grafikdon
07-23-2003, 11:49 PM
Ninja Scroll has a lasting value. I can watch the DVD over and over again.

noisewar
07-23-2003, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by samgrice
god, i hope this dosn't turn into a bitching spree about anime vs disney (although that would make a kick-ass film). but i was mainly refering to mainstream animation on both sides. i'm sorry but the BEST that japan has to offer beats the BEST america has to offer. oh and i'm really sorry about the Peter Chung thing, i really hate it when people get chinese/japanese muddled up.


You are sooooooooooooo wrong:

Yeah there is alot of japanese tosh, but thereis a hell of a lot to offer other than Aira and G.I.T.S, (metropolis, blood, ninja scroll, perfect blue, neon genesis, princess monokoe and spirited away.) to name but a few. (because its so damn hard to get hold of stuff in the west) that last one by the way won an oscar i believe.


For such a big fan, i'm surprised you didn't notice that Princess Monokoe and Spirited Away are indeed directed by Hayao Miyazaki whom I explicitly mentioned.

Metropolis - oh no we haven't seen this before.

Blood - at 48 minutes, I'd hardly consider this even cinema. Great animation, but I think they forgot to include an original story or even tell it in an original way.

Ninja Scroll (and Vampire D) - I love these movies. But when you look at the dialogue, it's easy to realize why the Japanese need more work on their scripts.

Neon Genesis - Contains copious amouts of aforementioned mechs with fins. But I'll give you that it's a good story... hell Weta's making into a movie so you just may win on the "cinematic acheivement" category too.

I wasn't saying there's no quality work in japanimation, but the point is that there is plenty to offer in American animation as well. The problem is the audience here fails to ever hear about some of the great. For starters, I suggest you pick up a copy of the movie "I Married a Strange Person" by Bill Plympton, comics by Alex Ross, Douglas Adams, and I'm sure there's more in the underground I don't know about). Check out Tim Burton's ilk. Grab a copy of Heavy Metal magazine. Look up Oskar Fischinger. Edward Gorey anyone? There's alot of great non-Japanese stuff out there, don't be a fanboy, love all animation and art.

samgrice
07-24-2003, 12:05 AM
There's alot of great non-Japanese stuff out there, don't be a fanboy, love all animation and art.
yeah, ok. but non of the things you mention are really mainstream things, and thats what were talking about. disney should not only look to japan for insparation, but to other adult themed animaion world over.

oh and metropolis, while not the most origonal work ever, i thought it was brilliant in every respect. animation, style characters and story, all perfectly woven, this is what modern disney animations should be like.

noisewar
07-24-2003, 12:06 AM
Oh and some more I can think of off the top of my head that are mainstream enough to be findable...

The Maxx
The Head
Rugrats
Samurai Jack
The Brak Show (and that show with it with the superhero team of french fries and shakes and stuff, they kick ass)
Billy's Balloon
Siggraph show reels if you can afford them.
Heavy Metal FAKK
Fritz the Cat
Wallace and Gromit
I Married a Strange Person
Batman Beyond
Looney tunes!
Invader Zim
THE TICK!!!!

buh... too many can't think right now...

noisewar
07-24-2003, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by samgrice
yeah, ok. but non of the things you mention are really mainstream things, and thats what were talking about. disney should not only look to japan for insparation, but to other adult themed animaion world over.

oh and metropolis, while not the most origonal work ever, i thought it was brilliant in every respect. animation, style characters and story, all perfectly woven, this is what modern disney animations should be like.


Hehehe not stomping on you, and I'm not talking about you, but I get insulted when people think Disney represents animation in America. And I really hate the "DISNEY PRESENTS" in the beginning of every Pixar film as if it were Eisner's own idea. I pray everynite that Pixar leaves those bastards.

samgrice
07-24-2003, 12:13 AM
amen brother, testify!

oh, and Wallace and Gromit is the mutts nuts! :buttrock:

noisewar
07-24-2003, 12:19 AM
You have any idea when they're gonna release that one anime on DVD in the States? It used to be on Toonami... there was this slick film noirish Bruce Wayne-ish character in i think a future chicago. He had this robot maid, and whenever a mystery got tough he'd call up this huge retro looking bot to duuke it out. I loved that series... but I forget it's name.

Cinematography
07-24-2003, 12:21 AM
Goon
”I know you have this thing about pure 2d artforms, but refusing to have 3d elements in a film just because is ridiculous.”
I didn’t say we shouldn’t integrate 3D with 2D. I said that there is “too much” integration between 3D and 2D. Are major studios afraid that 2D can’t hold its own anymore? Or are they just too lazy to do another good 2D piece without help from 3D?

” Iron Giant: could that have been done without 3d? Yes, but it would have looked like crap!”
You don’t know any good 2D animators, do you?

” 2d artists cannot handle complex and rigid 3d deformations without uselessly expending insane amounts of time, the computer is extremely useful here and should not be discounted.”
Some, not all. You need to watch Fantasia and Sleeping Beauty.

”2d due to its limitations has to be quite simple.”
:annoyed: Have you seen Akira (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0094625)?! Have you seen the The Thief and the Cobbler (http://www.geocities.com/eddie_bowers/)?!

gumpymaker
07-24-2003, 12:25 AM
"Imagine if you could spend the time to shade and perfectly light every cell of 2D animation and that you didn't have to redraw the character each time you could just manipulate a single drawing oh and you don't even have to draw in shadows they'll be created for you as well as painting you'll only have to do that once and the frames will be combined while you play golf"

If you would of told this to any of the first 2d animators they would of burned there paper and brushes. The '2D style' is only a reflection of deadlines and money, I've seen photorealistic traditional still art so it's not a question of skill. They could of made a realistic animation that would probably of looked something like what we have today with 3D art. But they simply didn't have the time. This is the same reason the majority of 2D characters don't have the correct number of fingers not because of 'style' but because of time. The only real residue that 2D animation will leave is the time tested techniques of animation. I'm a real sucker for physics based movement and animation but the techniques (stretch, squash...etc) of motion developed in 2D that have leaked into 3D really give characters life.

noisewar
07-24-2003, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by Cinematography
Goon

:annoyed: Have you seen Akira (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0094625)?! Have you seen the The Thief and the Cobbler (http://www.geocities.com/eddie_bowers/)?!

Actually Akira used CG elements. It was groundbreaking for doing so.

GRMac13
07-24-2003, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by noisewar
Oh and some more I can think of off the top of my head that are mainstream enough to be findable...

The Maxx
The Head
Rugrats
Samurai Jack
The Brak Show (and that show with it with the superhero team of french fries and shakes and stuff, they kick ass)
Billy's Balloon
Siggraph show reels if you can afford them.
Heavy Metal FAKK
Fritz the Cat
Wallace and Gromit
I Married a Strange Person
Batman Beyond
Looney tunes!
Invader Zim
THE TICK!!!!

buh... too many can't think right now...

Hey, thought I'd add a few:

Watership Down
The Secret of NIMH
Aeon Flux
South Park
The Simpsons
Family Guy
Futurama
Waking Life
The Iron Giant
Who Framed Roger Rabbit
An American Tail
Charlotte's Web
The Last Unicorn
Plymptoons - The Complete Works of Bill Plympton
Ren & Stimpy
The Nightmare Before Christmas (not 2D, but I had to list it)

I'm sure there are many more, but my brain hurts.

Cinematography
07-24-2003, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by noisewar
Actually Akira used CG elements. It was groundbreaking for doing so.
Akira isn't known best for the 1 CG element that it had. Its know best for its story, and its amazing 2D work. :annoyed:

grafikdon
07-24-2003, 12:54 AM
Whew! Finally, someone mentioned Watership Down. I thought nobody knew about this classic. It is easy to churn out laugh-off-your-butt stories but take a good shot at stories that really touch the heart and you will be the winner.

2D rocks!!!![SIZE=4][B]

aaron johnson
07-24-2003, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by Goon
lol cinematography. I know you have this thing about pure 2d artforms, but refusing to have 3d elements in a film just because is ridiculous. Its a matter of telling a story, and if the 3d can be integrated in such a way that it does not disrupt the visual appearance of the film, why not do so? The great mouse detective, I never knew that that was 3d gears in the clock tower until years later (it just didnt occur to my pre-pubescent mind), it blended so well. Spirited Away, excellent cg integration, same with Lilo and Stitch. The artform is the visual style, not what method you use to create it. That is the equivalent of saying mediums such as charcoal and pencil should not be combined, but the end result is what is on the canvas, and it is by purely technical reasoning that you choose what tool you wish to use to get there.

Iron Giant: could that have been done without 3d? Yes, but it would have looked like crap! 2d artists cannot handle complex and rigid 3d deformations without uselessly expending insane amounts of time, the computer is extremely useful here and should not be discounted. To act in such a way is to actually limit the freedom of the artist to create.

Admittedly how it is done should be handled with great care. 2d due to its limitations has to be quite simple. The integration used in Sinbad and Treasure planet had far too detailed texture mapping which instantly contrasted with the characters. Plus the exhorbant camera movements not only gave the animators a difficult task (and wasted huge amounts of money on stuff like the captain's mechanical arm), but partially ruined the 2dness of the films. So to an extent i agree with you, but only so far.


Didn’t the Lion King use 3D integration in some of the scenes? I think the wildebeest stampede scene was one. It worked out pretty good. In fact, I think it is one of the best-animated films of all time. This applies to 2D or 3D. It was the story that made it great not particularly the medium.

noisewar
07-24-2003, 01:42 AM
oops my bad... although it was still the first anime to have any CG right? I must be tripping...

Secret of NIMH was awesome! Aint that the guy who did the Dragon's Lair games? Good stuff.

dooom
07-24-2003, 01:47 AM
noisewar is my hero!!!!!!

GRMac13
07-24-2003, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by noisewar
oops my bad... although it was still the first anime to have any CG right? I must be tripping...

Secret of NIMH was awesome! Aint that the guy who did the Dragon's Lair games? Good stuff.

Yessir it is. The great Disney reject, Don Bluth himself.

He also did Titan A.E. , Anastasia, Rock-A-Doodle, All Dogs Go to Heaven, The Land Before Time, and An American Tail, among others.

noisewar
07-24-2003, 01:53 AM
And does anybody know if there's a DVD with Terry Gilliam's animation? that stuff rocks, but all I ever see are little shorts that leave me wanting more more more.

samgrice
07-24-2003, 02:10 AM
yeah i'd love it if Terry Gilliam went back to animation, the last thing he did was a couple of short clips for a monty python aniversarry a few years ago. he said he found it so easy with after effects! damn some of those old clips are pure classic, does anyone remember the one with the giant rampaging cat? or the one with suicidal leaves?

Cinematography
07-24-2003, 02:49 AM
noisewar
"oops my bad... although it was still the first anime to have any CG right? I must be tripping..."
What’s your point? Akira is known best for its story, and extremely well executed 2D animation.

Have you seen The Thief and The Cobbler (http://www.geocities.com/eddie_bowers/)? Have you seen any of the classic Disney animation? Those movies, especially The Thief and The Cobbler, will kill your blind, unfounded, assumptions about the ‘limitations of 2D animation’.

If it weren’t for 2D, there would be no 3D. If it weren’t for your mother, there would be no you. Get it? Should we just abandon our mothers just because they aren’t as fast, or as quick witted as we are?

grafikdon
07-24-2003, 02:53 AM
I think the stampede in Lion king was Computer Generated in the sense that the animals were hand drawn but composited, something that could be done in After Effects. I don't think they were 3D models...go and check it out again it was computer Generated and not 3 dimensional toon shaded animals as many think.

Cinematography
07-24-2003, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by grafikdon
I think the stampede in Lion king was Computer Generated in the sense that the animals were hand drawn but composited, something that could be done in After Effects. I don't think they were 3D models...go and check it out again it was computer Generated and not 3 dimensional toon shaded animals as many think.
I saw the making of The Lion King, and the stampede scene was done with computer animation.

Levitateme
07-24-2003, 02:57 AM
2d art should never go away, i mean it wont. but stories like
"i lost our cat with a diamond the size of a eyeball attached to his collar. and the only way to get him back is to hire a team of cutups who make the story wacky along the way" stuff like that should stop being made. people are to mature these days.

Cinematography
07-24-2003, 03:03 AM
- edited -

noisewar
07-24-2003, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by Cinematography
noisewar

What’s your point? Akira is known best for its story, and extremely well executed 2D animation.

Have you seen The Thief and The Cobbler (http://www.geocities.com/eddie_bowers/)? Have you seen any of the classic Disney animation? Those movies, especially The Thief and The Cobbler, will kill your blind, unfounded, assumptions about the ‘limitations of 2D animation’.

If it weren’t for 2D, there would be no 3D. If it weren’t for your mother, there would be no you. Get it? Should we just abandon our mothers just because they aren’t as fast, or as quick witted as we are?


Wow chill out dude, I love 2D animation, relax, you're just as bad as fanboys of 3D.

tdmack
07-24-2003, 03:48 AM
this is my 2 cents,

I love 2D and always have, but am captivated by 3D. However 2D is the way to go it you want to be a better animator and that is the bare truth.

On to the subject. I think that 2D should stay and is still strong but as everybody states it has to be with the story that it all counts on. You can have bad drawn animation crappy sound etc. but if the story is amazing then the film will still do will. This is one reason why 3D has been doing so well. Sure it is new but the stories have been awesome. Finding Nemo would finest example of this.

So in conclusion let's all just get our pencils or mice out or whatever you prefer and animate some awesome compeling stories.

AVTPro
07-24-2003, 03:49 AM
Too bad this is only about big money. Opps. Only 20 mill when they spent 120 on advertising alone.

Terrible they would completely switch directions.

So, in a way they are saying Pixar has them beat right now.

JulianHo
07-24-2003, 03:50 AM
Originally posted by noisewar
You have any idea when they're gonna release that one anime on DVD in the States? It used to be on Toonami... there was this slick film noirish Bruce Wayne-ish character in i think a future chicago. He had this robot maid, and whenever a mystery got tough he'd call up this huge retro looking bot to duuke it out. I loved that series... but I forget it's name.

The Big-O. :) 2nd Season available on Japanese DVD NOW!

Phugative
07-24-2003, 04:22 AM
I haven't read everyone else’s responses, but I figured I would put in my two cents.

2D animation is not dead as an art form, juts like any other form animation may take is not dead. When it comes to big budget films like the works Disney and DreamWorks produces 2D, then yes 2D animation is dying, in an industry sense. The fact of the matter is that 2D films no longer make money, and you can argue all day over why that is, poor story telling, limits of 2D, blah blah blah. The fact is computer generated films are making the money, they are the new trend, it happens, that's Hollywood. However, this doesn't mean that 2D animation is dead, look at Miyazaki's most recent work, or the collaborative effects that produced the Animatrix, a beautiful blending of both 2D and 3D. This is still in terms of big budget animation films and shorts. There is still tons of independent 2D, stop motion, and experimental animation being created all over the world and it has a huge fan following. Look at the work of contemporary artists of the past years like Bill Plympton, Nick Park, Don Hertzfeld, Caroline Leaf, and Henry Selick, just to name some of the popular ones. There is great work being produced from countries like Belgium, Italy and Canada, you just have to look for it. 2D is no longer mainstream, the masses don't desire it, the ticket sales don't support it, but it won't die, especially if we as artists and animation enthusiasts continue to support, create and enjoy it.

hopper2k
07-24-2003, 04:37 AM
Not sure if anyone's mentioned this yet (too many replys to read), but I believe the reason why the past 2D movies haven't been doing well, is because they simply are not good films and/or don't appeal to many people. It has nothing to do with them being traditionally animated, and I hate it when people blame that as being the reason. Now, people outside the animation industry may see 2D movies like the new Sinbad movie as "eeeww" when comparing it to 3D movies like Finding Nemo, so generally they aren't interested in seeing it, which is why they don't do well at the box office. But since money is the main issue about everything, if 2D movies aren't going to be making money, then they'll simply stop making them before they improve on the storylines. I honestly thought most 2D movies have been bad post Lion King, with the exception of Tarzan (while I haven't seen some of the Dreamworks ones). On the other hand, I have thought all the 3D feature films have been great (while I haven't seen Antz). But with all the 3D features soon to come out, there's bound to be an absolute bomb. So when that happens, then it will prove that it's not just the whole "3D" thing that's making animated movies great.

FloydBishop
07-24-2003, 05:01 AM
I think a big problem now is that films aren't made to last. Studios now only care about opening weekend, which is why in the US in the summer, every Monday morning you ALWAYS here about which films did well at the box office on the weekend.

Very rarely do you hear a fair or unbiased review. Many "reviewers" just try to be whitty (Joel Siegal comes to mind), often making word plays on the title or something dumb like that.

If a studio can get good buzz by buying a few reviews (flying reviewers out to lavish premieres in exotic places), why should they care about content. Unfortunately, the average movie goer eats this crap up like a pig at a trough.

After the dust settles, people start to find the films for what they are. Some are remembered fondly, and some are seen as the junk that they are. Usually by this time, the executives have already laid off the staff that made a successful film.

Of all of Disney's classics, how many would Disney actually greenlight today?

aaron johnson
07-24-2003, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by Cinematography
I saw the making of The Lion King, and the stampede scene was done with computer animation.

Thats what I thought.

drewantarctic
07-24-2003, 05:51 AM
did painting leave the face of the planet when photography was popularized? NO!

Cinematography
07-24-2003, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by noisewar
Wow chill out dude, I love 2D animation, relax, you're just as bad as fanboys of 3D.

ARE YOU TRYING TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO?!?!? HUH?!?! FINE!!! I WILL GO CHILL OUT!!! I need to take a break from my work anyhow.
:beer:

JB
07-24-2003, 06:39 AM
I see, so if Sinbad was all 3D it would have made $200 million? :rolleyes:

olijosman
07-24-2003, 07:19 AM
in few years the market will be saturated of familiar films 3d. ice2, shreck2, toy story3?....etc.

The occidental animation 2d is contaminated. Only exists musical comedies or comedies, and the animation 3d has the same way.

the Japanese animation is a good example of variety, and that is the way to follow (animatrix, FL CL)
:hmm: (I love the disney animation but only has infantile comedies, like dreamworks and... pixar)

enzodiac
07-24-2003, 07:26 AM
a general thought on traditional 2d animation from my point of view is that it will actually disappear for a while... but sooner or later it will get back as people get tired of all the realistic animations.

ACFred
07-24-2003, 07:43 AM
Everybody send $20 to Don Bluth Studios.

singleguy
07-24-2003, 07:50 AM
jezz.. what has the world been up too? Without the priciples of 2d animation, how are we going to do a good 3d animation. Its all about the people who produce it.. don't give up on 2d.. lilo and stich is as good as finding nemo..

Dominique
07-24-2003, 08:53 AM
They are wrong,
Chihiro, Kirikou, Iron Giant, Lilo Stitch, Les Triplettes, Nightmare, Chicken Run just have qualities I don't see anymore in the latest Disney/DreamWork films.
Maybe just a passionate director and NOT a marketing Director??

Dom

WhiteBlaizer
07-24-2003, 08:57 AM
to sum up, in my opinion, American animation is a huge crap compared with japanese animation. Anime is the summun of the 2d animation.

Dreamworks, disney and others do only comedy for kids, for little kids... they have not ideas to make films... and now they say 3d...

All the series in my country are craps from America, like the archiexploted simpsons and futurama... (the 3d parts are very 3d and it gives the sensation of not be a solid animation), super nenas, hulk, etc. Huge craps...

I hate those charas that are always the same in american animation... Sinbad have a style very exploted... is too similar to the Moises film...

The lack of originality is seen in all american films... compared to the explosive originality from japan.

i don't pretend to ofend anyone with my opinion. I'm only :thumbsdow with american animation. They are doing the things very very bad. They do a promotion of films too expensive and terrible... and then... anime from japan, without promotion and less technique is better.

regards

PD: Animatrix sux sux, i see it that a failure attemp to imitate the un-imatable. We must be original.
PDD: i want to see ya! all the capabilities from those studios that will use cel shaded in 3d to do 2d kinda look.

singleguy
07-24-2003, 09:22 AM
sorry to break this WhiteBlaizer,
but animatrix is directed by japanese. Well at least half of them.
Well, partially ur rite. I miss all the good ol snow white and the seven dwarfs. Compare the tech on those times and today, and what they can produce. Everyone should watch more on the making and they will really be impressed.

Cinematography
07-24-2003, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by Max_Power
I see, so if Sinbad was all 3D it would have made $200 million? :rolleyes:
Are you talking to me? If you are, did you notice #1 on my list?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is the problem:
1) Stupid ass stories!

2) Too much 3D integrated with the 2D. By doing this, you are making the 2D look 'not as good', and you're destroying the purity of the 2D.

rawgon
07-24-2003, 10:01 AM
2d animation its an art form, it will never end, like painting, drawing...
just because studios don´t want to do it, doesn´t mean its over...
its all about money... and evolution!!!:rolleyes:

eek
07-24-2003, 10:26 AM
(typing this whilst animating 3d character) I dont think 2d is dead, more like its going into stagnated hibernation. Its the lack of compelling storylines, characters and plot thats bringing its downfall, and the horrible style disney is using on all it films in recent years(smooth/straight).O how a wish to hark back to the good old days of the jungle book, and snow white. And smaller more indepentent companies are gaining the reigh- animatrix, iron giant, les tripelets of bellville with much stronger storylines, more complelling and clever mixes of 3d/2d and foremost unique styles. Disneys problem is that they have to rake in the cash, its a buisness that has fallen into a rut, the who point of animation is that you can do things that arnt based in reality, you can go crazy! Disney has fallen into the fast food industry of animation- churning out rubbish with no content, also taking classical tales and put futuritic spin on them -treasure planet that just dont work. 2d animation is a beautiful artform and with the right balance of key things can be great. As with 3d, its riding on the back of the wave, the hype is going down, more mixes of total 3d
intergration are being seen - gollum, hulk. As with 3d animation prodominently in features its winning its got better storylines and more intresting characters- ice age's scrat. Finding nemo story took 5 years to work out! As with saturday morning tv, 2d is winnng, simpler story, quick to read, and characters that grab you. Also better styles- sponge bob square pants, samurai jack there stunning pieces of animation. I dont think its that 2d animation is dying, i think its the major compaines are having to rethink how they do feature. Cg is the buzz word at the minute and thats why its in the spot light, but in tv, 2d is having its glory.Its the consensis on puplic attitude to see funny compelling characters that you can empathise with and 3d is winning at this stage. Also one key thing is that i wouldnt have been able to be working now, animating this 3d character if i hadnt of trained traditionally first, it what i base all my work on.

-eek

ZeroNeuro
07-24-2003, 10:54 AM
lol does it matter? The boat sank anyway. I'm rather confused as to what is going to happen to characters in animation. From my experience, most cgi cel shaded character look just a little 'off'

Originally posted by Peter Reynolds
Do you notice a theme.

BLAME.

Why does no one ever take responsibility?

Could you imagine the captain of the TITANIC saying, "Hey, its not my fault, its not my responsibility. Its those damn workers down in the engine room, and those lazy sods scrubbing the decks. They're all fired! That'll fix the problem."

Clanger
07-24-2003, 11:19 AM
I wouldn't like to see 2d animation die but, and this is a big but.
I've gone to the cinema and seen every 100% 3D animated film that's come out over here ever, some times more than once. I can't remember the last time I saw a 2D film at the cinema!
Going to the cinema in the UK is expensive and not always a good experience so it has to be something I want to see bad and at the moment if it hasn't got large amounts of 3D or incredably funny, I can't drag myself there.

I know if 2D dies I've only got myself to blame.

jbw
07-24-2003, 11:30 AM
I've only read a couple of comments on this thread but want to add my thoughts...

Firstly 2d animation will never die I probably say this because I don't understand why someone today would go and watch a fully 3d animation just because it is 3d. 2d can look superb too. At the end of the day the computer is just a tool and it does speed up production for sure. Unless I've read the article wrongly did they state they were moving to 3d or just bringing in more computers to do 2d work?

Surely Disney need to look at both their storylines and their advertising campaigns if they want to find a solution to recent animations failing in cinemas. I haven't watched a Disney animation since Tarzan but from what I can remember the artists and animators work has always been of a high standard.
I presume their reasons for releasing works based on classic fairytales or myths was because they 'were' popular childrens books? What do todays parents read their 'wee nippers' as a bed time story, snow white and the seven dwarfs or perhaps Harry Potter? :shrug:

Look at the vast number of blockbuster films that featured mind blowing 3d effects/characters/monsters and fell on their arse. Why did this happen... because there wasn't a plot and none of the characters were given the opportunity to develop. :shame:

I personally don't think it would be in Disney's best interests to go down the anime/manga route of adult storys and animations, the company has spent it's entire life building up a reputation for childrens stuff.

ta,
jbw

jadedchron
07-24-2003, 11:49 AM
atleast it'll save some trees.

JamesMK
07-24-2003, 12:05 PM
What the business venture known as Disney decides to do is one thing - general 2D is another...

The entire concept of proclaiming the possible death of some particular technique is quite insane IMO. In reality, the methods of realizing a piece of artwork is definitely second to the idea itself.

Take a good story, or a great idea for an image, add some meaning, have a point, add a lot of passion and a human touch - then decide what technique would convey this in the best possible way: it may turn out to be cel animation, CG, claymation, stopmotion, ordinary actors and cameras or maybe a sculpture made of dried-up manure - it's still just second to the concept itself.

Is oilpainting dead? Or wood carvings? Well, might not end up as box-office hits, but any technique you can think of is still alive. Any technique not yet seen can still be invented and used successfully. Take sculpting for instance, it's been around for thousands of years, and it's still alive.

asparapani
07-24-2003, 12:18 PM
Well I've been reading this thread an I just had to jump in.

I would like to give my two cents on all of this, if you all permit me of course.

Ok, for ALL you people saying that 2d is dead? That is rediculous!
2d isn't dead, the way 2d is made will dye, but the look continues to prosper. There are other visual places to see 2d besides feature films. Internet,games,tv shows, etc....

Now personally I perfer the 3d look, especially in movies.
I myself am a 3dcharacter animator. I don't know how to draw, but I wish I did, not to learn the principles but because that's all through theory and experience. The advantage of 2d is the fact that they are less lazy than their 3d counterparts.

Think about it. We don't have to worry about perspective, camera's, staging, volume, keeping the character " on model ". The layout department does all that for us. All we need are intentions, a storyboard, and maybe a breifing on the rigging if we never touched the character before. THAT'S IT!

I guess what i'm trying to say is that 2d teaches you patience and more on the artistic side as opposed to the sometimes very technical side of 3d.

samgrice
07-24-2003, 12:30 PM
if all the big companies are changing to 3d, then they should use 2d to produce films that 3d can't, namely mature flicks. if you were to do akira or ghost in the shell in 3d you would end up with films like final fantasy, which is pointless, you might as well do it with live action.

all these new 3d films are gonna be in the same vein as all american animation has come before: cute stuff for kids. 2d should evolve and mature into an art form to entertain adults.

it probably wont though, no studio will take the risk, which is a real shame.:scream:

FloydBishop
07-24-2003, 05:30 PM
Here's what Ray Harryhausen recently said about CG:

"CGI is remarkable, but is not the be-all and end-all. What's important is what interests the public. If you can do it with a yo-yo, then why not! It shouldn't define everything. CGI doesn't make a better film, it's the stories that make the film."

Source:

Empire (http://www.empireonline.co.uk/news/news.asp?4910)

Matt Leishman
07-24-2003, 09:41 PM
here here Floyd (and moreso Ray). My thoughts exactly, why can't our "all too noble and great" Hollywood exec's figure this out?

Thanks again Floyd. :thumbsup:

noisewar
07-24-2003, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by sithwarlord
here here Floyd (and moreso Ray). My thoughts exactly, why can't our "all too noble and great" Hollywood exec's figure this out?

Thanks again Floyd. :thumbsup:

Ok try this... pick up your computer. Not too bad eh? Ok move it outside into the yard? Tougher? Ok buy a new top of the line Dell. Expensive, not too hard tho.
Ok... now.... WRITE A GOOD STORY GO GO GO GO GO! GET INSPIRED! CARE! THINK! LOVE!

Hehe... I see the studio exec with smiles a'beamin' at hte thought of option 1 over option 2.

olijosman
07-25-2003, 07:12 AM
make animation films (3d/2d) like fastfood, are not beneficial for animación.

favorite animatiton film: Ghost in the Shell

AVTPro
07-25-2003, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Floyd Bishop
Here's what Ray Harryhausen recently said about CG:

" CGI doesn't make a better film, it's the stories that make the film."

Source:

Empire (http://www.empireonline.co.uk/news/news.asp?4910)


The technical quaiity of Sinbad or Treasure was no less than Lion King. LK was a better story with wider appeal. Sinbad was mismarketed to a small audience. I think Disney want to go 3D and redo old content, like shrek, a new edge of an old fable. Disney is looking at a bigger picture that they didn't get at first.

Boone
07-25-2003, 09:50 PM
After watching Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs I can't believe Disney has come crashing down to the ground...such a waste:hmm:

Goon
07-25-2003, 10:32 PM
It is a big deal if these movies arent a success. Its not just about making huge amounts of money, its about regaining your production costs.

Treasure Planet cost $180 million <<<here>>> (http://www.pathea.com/disney/2000/treasure/production/index.shtml).
It didnt come close to making that back.

Dinosaurs was a similar fiasco. Coincdentally they seem to have forgotten that the last time they did 3d it turned out to be a horrible venture. <<here>> (http://www.jimhillmedia.com/legacy/index.htm?../articles/01152003.1.htm~contentFrame).

Disney does not have limitless funds, and they are heavily responsible to their investors. Even if Eisner wasnt a bastard, they would have to follow where the money seems to be (ie. Pixar raking it in).

Dreamworks no doubt is in a similar boat.

Hmura
07-26-2003, 12:13 AM
The way i see it, its a shame for Disney, but their last 2D animations were not that good... but its only 2 studios that are switching to 3d only, and like everyone else said, its the stories not the medium that will show how well they go

... think of it this way, now that the 2 largest competitors are out of the 2D game, other studios should try to capitalize on this...

my two cents :)

mrZack
07-27-2003, 04:57 PM
and i welcome it with open arms, so does the paying movie goers. :deal:

grafikdon
08-26-2003, 12:11 PM
We all keep talking about how only a good story is the key to a successful animation. This is not true. Animation is a combination of good story, stunning animation and character design, jaw dropping sound track and believable voice acting. These are components that make a good animated movie and not just a good story.
Sure you can use stick figures supposing the voice acting and sound track were off balance? You will end up with an award winning pointless animation. We should stop living under the delusion that only a good story can propel animation to high heavens. Lion King wasn't a stunner because of the story alone, everything on it from art to music was a masterpiece in my humble opinion. There should ba a balance between all the components of animation. Do not compensate for a mediocre animation, character design and soundtrack with a good story and vise versa.

eek
08-26-2003, 12:20 PM
good point:p ,

Personally i think sound is half the film/animation. It can be used in so many different ways, blending cuts, hiding cuts, story telling, empathy for the character atmosphere etc etc.

Also if you watch a film with no sound its amazing how many bad cuts you see, that you'd never noticed with sound.

-eek

Peter Reynolds
08-26-2003, 01:45 PM
The reason the emphasis is on story is because that's often the part the falls down.

No one is suggesting you put out a great story with crappy animation, poor character design, bad sound and terrible voice acting.

The other reason the focus is on story is that if your number one aim is to tell a good story, then THAT aim drives the visuals, the sound, the performance, the design, etc. This is what PIXAR strives for.

Could you imagine it any other way...

Alternate reality meeting at RAXIP

Bob: So the characters name is Sully, and he's this giant blue monster with....

Jimbo: So how do you want him rendered Bob? Stick figure?

Bob: Sure Jimbo, whatever.

Jimbo: Who do you want to voice him?

Bob: Who cares.

Mat (marketing guy): Actually, we care Bob. Jlow has a 97% approval rating this week, so we suggest you go with her.

Bob: But isn't...

Mat: 97%

Bob: Oh, I see your point.

dharmabum
08-26-2003, 03:04 PM
I don't know why people keep saying stuff about good story. Mostly all the CG movies are the same. They're all buddy movies. Think about it the first Toy Story to Ice Age to Nemo. All a group of buddies going a trip to save someone or something. Wait a couple more years and I'm sure it will all get very boring and people will complain about the terrible story in CG movies.

Disney went through it and most probably Pixar will as well. If you think of all the animated movies CG or 2D that didn't do well when released (Iron Giant, Final Fantasy, Spirit) it was because they weren't the same story (albeit they could have been bad movies as well). The public wants the same thing over and over again until they get bored and want something different. Hence why Disney kept making the same old boring movie again and again and why Pixar is doing the same as well. People don't complain about Pixar because they're the new guys on the block that can't do wrong. It will happen. It always does.

They're track record is good but so was Disney's in the heyday (from the Little Mermaid to the Lion King) then things went wrong. Hopefully these companies are smarter and will try to avoid trying to secure their niche (ie. the childrens market) rather than making good films and then they possibly might not be a fallout. But that's how it goes in the entertainment industry. You get popular you rise to stardom then you plumet into the abyss. The people who have avoided that did by keeping things fresh and interesting. That's what I'm hoping all these studios will do rather than making the same old movie again and again and again and again...

Remeber Pixar has basically made the same movie since Toy Story. TS1: Toy buddies save fellow toy. BL: Bug buddies save fellow bugs. TS2: Toy buddies save fellow toy again. MI: Monster buddies save monster way of life by saving a little girl. FN: Fish buddies save fellow fish and son.

It's plain as the eye can see and believe me you will get bored of it.

I have nothing against Pixar by ragging on them. I love the stuff they do. My only concern is I see what happened with Disney and don't want it to happen to Pixar. It's very easy to remake the same thing with new characters that have fur or scales and just them to realize it before the audience does.

peterpro
08-26-2003, 10:18 PM
the public will not get bored of it.

there is a very large point being missed here.

buddy movies will never go away.

unless you want to see castaway type movies for the next decade, you need poeple striving for something.

and being in a group is as natural as breathing, the sky, and as eternal as the sun and stars.

and because we live in a world where poeple age, and grow older.

there is always a market that has not "gotten enough"

geeze the things you guys write.
have you been in the animation industry at all??

good movies need more than story guys. sorry.
they need poeple with skill to execute these storys. People with vision, people who know how to cut, and edit, and take chances. Ever see evil dead II?
they did wacky stuff in that movie and its a classic.
They took film language and played with it.

Once a pon a time, followed by monolougue in the driest of tone
regardless of the quality of the story will suck.

sorry guys, story is all important, but execution of said story is whats going to make it a classic.
Classics have both.
pete

Peter Reynolds
08-27-2003, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by Peter Reynolds


No one is suggesting you put out a great story with crappy animation, poor character design, bad sound and terrible voice acting.


Deaf as a post eh? or should I say blind as a bat?

;o)

markbones
08-27-2003, 05:53 AM
Unfortunately, I think people will get excited about a new CG movie just beacuse it is CG. They'll have to go to the theatre and pay the $$, and will only find out afterwards that the movie sucked. People make that judgement about a 2D movie simply from advertising, and stay away.

I think Disney bombed with Treasure Planet and Sinbad because they were not really kids movies - somthing like Lion King has all the nice furry animals, and (young) kids drag their parents to take them to see it without really caring what the story is about.

P.S. Visually I thought Finding Nemo was amazing, but story wise... even from the ads it seemed too much of a "Disney" movie to me. At least Toy Story and Monsters were original twists and P.O.V.es on the buddy theme. I am also tired of the buddy movies, I want something dark, evil, and sinister!!! :twisted:

olijosman
08-27-2003, 06:55 AM
certain, I am tired of infantile films,( pixar , Disney , dreamsworks, blue sky), I want a good history of terror,science fiction...etc no another buddy movie!!:shame:
I recommend: FOOLY COOLY

eek
08-27-2003, 08:58 AM
I saw the episiodes of "Gone Bad" i while ago there fantastic kinda "the Evil dead" meets cg. I dont think there were any buddy's in that.

-eek

dharmabum
08-27-2003, 02:45 PM
the public will not get bored of it.
Just watch. Everybody is making a CG feature. They will all be buddy movies and people will get bored of it. Things work in trends in the movie industry. Think about it. We went through teen sex romps, horror, action adventure, disney fluff etc. These things will always be around but that's not to say that their popularity will falter now and again even if it is a good movie. That's just the way the industry works. You should know better than that. Think about all the movies that came out this summer. Almost all sequels, all the same and almost all did not do as well as predicted in the box office. Why? People did not want the same old thing. Of course they may have been bad movies as well.

buddy movies will never go away.
Very true. There are only a limited amount of genres out there. Execution is the number one factor on a successful movie.

MindShell
08-27-2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by dharmabum
Just watch. Everybody is making a CG feature. They will all be buddy movies and people will get bored of it. Things work in trends in the movie industry. Think about it. We went through teen sex romps, horror, action adventure, disney fluff etc. These things will always be around but that's not to say that their popularity will falter now and again even if it is a good movie. That's just the way the industry works.


NOD!

luv2xlr8
08-27-2003, 07:31 PM
Disney is boring :annoyed:

jeremybirn
08-28-2003, 03:11 AM
so, what happens to all the 2D animators who don't want to learn 3D?
Reuters: Roy P. Disney to buy... (http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030826/services_neptune_disney_1.html) :surprised

-jeremy

Peter Reynolds
08-28-2003, 05:08 AM
damn JB, you crack me up!

3bleadpencil
08-28-2003, 10:22 AM
multi-media......whatever works!!!!....and good storytelling....!

just my 2 cents..... Maybe the end result of a lot of projects are politically driven and determined by those who finance them. ie...disney.

Nemoid
08-29-2003, 09:16 AM
I think Disney have to shut down!!!
they are so crap,in tese recent years
that they deserve their failure.

2D will never die even if Disney
(The big old dinosaur) dies... :scream:

DotPainter
08-29-2003, 01:08 PM
If you look at it, the history of animation in America leads us to this seeming trend away from 2d animation. In the early days, 2d was a new cutting edge medium, ripe with opportunities for storytelling. Disney emerged as one of the main innovators in the medium, and along the way set the standard in what would be acceptable in U.S. big budget cinema animation.

3d is now the new cutting edge visual medium for storytelling and likewise the money is on the new kid on the block. Studios probably ask themselves "why spend millions on r&d and pen and ink animators with a high likelyhood of a bomb?" Therefore, more effort in r&d and storytelling goes to the 3d side of the house. What is definitely bad for Disney is that most of this work has been farmed out to Pixar, which is to 3d now as Disney was to the early days of 2d. Therefore a lot of the creativity and talent is lost once Pixar goes away, leaving Disney to start from scratch and go back to the drawing tablet, so to speak.

I highly doubt that the U.S. will ever be able to bring 2d back from the dead because of a few reasons. Quality 2d feature films cannot be produced quickly. The amount of time, effort and required to produce a "cutting edge" 2d animation blockbuster like the Disney classics of yore would require years of effort and cost as much as the live action action spectaculars that dominate the summer box office. Hand drawn animation is an expensive laborious process, which is one of the main reasons for the cost. Hence, the effort to move more and more to computer assisted animation in most, if not all titles produced by Disney in the last few years. Another point of note is that anime features are a niche product in the U.S. Anime features make more from DVD than they ever will from wide theatrical release in the U.S. and therefore cannot be looked to solely as the answer.

It seems the studios have decided that it is far too late in the game to spend tons of money on a 2d animated epic in the hopes of reviving the glory of hand drawn American animation. Far better to spend that money on 3d and maybe at least break even.

Nemoid
08-30-2003, 05:21 PM
Well I think you have some point in describing why 2D seems going to die, but I think it will never die at all.

first of all, its true, making a great movie in 2D is expensive and time consuming indeed. but that 2D is now a good medium yet, very iconic and powerfull.

despite many products like Pixars and Dreamwork, we are quite far from the quality of animation in 3D. still animation doesn't reach the great quality of some Disney movies, in movement. Still I have to see a 3D movie wich reaches so a huge quality in the whole artistic aspects. Pixar movies for example still appear cold to me. I think its lighting and the great amount of details and other things.

also, japanimation demonstrates that 2D animation can become very good indeed.

oh , and also making a great 3D movie is time consuming and expensive .

I think that its the classic school of american animation wich suffers now. its not a matter of technique, american and Disney over all animation technique is astonishing, but its a matter of way of thinking.

the fact is that the world changed and Disney and Dreamworks seems not to be aware of this.
kids watch Simpsons, Anime, and other very different cartoons than Disneys because they reflect the world around them, and also use a language wich derives from the current society.

so that's why Disney & Dreamwork's new stories and characters are not so good. they didn't make huge innovations in telling stories since '70's
and in particular for movies stories wich are more difficult but important to do well.

there is one thing i don't understand and its why invest million of $ in technologies like 3D or CG cooring tools and apparently invest very few $ , time and research in stories.

and also new screenplays and new ways to make see and tell the things.

expecially for Disney, instead of learning what's good from different schools of animation, and instead of experiment, they simply stay with the same way of thinking they had in the past, with the exception that the good old artists with a good sense of taste they had, passed away, and their inheritance was not so well used.

however 2D look will never die. every kid (old or young) loves it
there will be new ways to produce it, with CG instead of pencils and colors if its needed to speed up and enhance the quality of projects. I see there are still some probs doing that , but they will be solved for sure in future years. So, you see, in the future 3D and 2D will be very close each other.

this is all a matter of technique and taste.

but the stories are the most important thing.

Peter Reynolds
08-30-2003, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Nemoid


despite many products like Pixars and Dreamwork, we are quite far from the quality of animation in 3D. still animation doesn't reach the great quality of some Disney movies, in movement. Still I have to see a 3D movie wich reaches so a huge quality in the whole artistic aspects. Pixar movies for example still appear cold to me. I think its lighting and the great amount of details and other things.


Disney has achieved some very impressive animation.

But could it be our fond memories of 2D that we are comparing with 3D rather than the original films themselves?

How about some specific examples?

Like "the animation in... (insert 2D film) is better than the animation in... (insert 3D film) because...

Digital Backlot
08-31-2003, 08:18 AM
My dream was to work for Disney... it's very sad. Walt is rollin in his grave so fast he could power a small country!

Peter Reynolds
08-31-2003, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Digital Backlot
Walt is rollin in his grave so fast he could power a small country!

Love it. LOL.

XenaTrek
08-06-2004, 12:23 PM
He's a former classmate of mine at East Lansing High, just a year ahead of me. We spoke off and on when he went away to Ringing for College, and then we sort of lost track of each other when he finished. His dad told me told me he was working for Blue Sky; and my brother (a SCAD grad and Justin's fan) told he now works for a company out in Japan.

If someone knows how to get in touch with him, could you please give him my email address and ask if he could get back in touch with me? I would greatly appreciate it.

Lisa aka XenaTrek.
XenaTrek@yahoo.com

CGTalk Moderation
01-15-2006, 05:00 PM
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.