Disney's problem with 2D Animation

[Brer Panther]

What, exactly, is Disney's problem with hand-drawn animation? When "The Princess and the Frog" bombed, they assumed it was because of the art style alone. They completely ignored that it was up against films like "Avatar" and "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel" and that there was very little marketing for it. But when a CGI film bombs, they just shrug it off. It's almost like they're biased.

 

[kap91]

Tell me about it. Probably something to do with management thinking it isn't "hip" enough to make money or be relevant. And the execs have no personal attachment to the art form.

 

[Disneyfanman]

First, it didn't bomb. It was in the black, though just barely. Second, can you think of a 2D hit in the last 10 years? I can't. They view it as too risky to sink 100 million into a 2D film. I miss it too, but I do love the current stuff. 2D is a phonograph record. Loved but gone.

 

[kap91]

First, it didn't bomb. It was in the black, though just barely. Second, can you think of a 2D hit in the last 10 years? I can't. They view it as too risky to sink 100 million into a 2D film. I miss it too, but I do love the current stuff. 2D is a phonograph record. Loved but gone.

How could there be? Nearly everyone stopped making them.

 

[Brer Panther]

Can you think of a 2D hit in the last 10 years?

Well, there was The Simpsons Movie. There was also the recent SpongeBob movie, but the advertising played up the CGI stuff at the end, so...

 

[prberk]

Frozen was CGI but had the look of a beautifully hand-drawn film with computer help, like Beauty and the Beast and Brother Bear.

The key is the story and artistry, not necessarily the tools used to make it.

Disney used the multiplane camera to achieve multidimensional effects for the sake of the art, hand-drawn but not necessarily 2-D.

So, I think that hand-drawn animation should still be used in Disney films, but some more than others, depending o the effects and feel intended. Some parts of Bambi cannot be done more effectively on a computer, but a computer might have enhanced other classics.

 

[kap91]

The good news is the technology developed for Paperman and that Dog short allows artist to use hand drawn animation but put it onto a 3d character and world. I imagine once its developed further that's the way they'll go for a lot of stuff.

 

[imagineer boy]

The key is the story and artistry, not necessarily the tools used to make it.

I disagree. While story and artistry are probably the most important, the tools and medium can make a big impact as well. Can you imagine Nightmare Before Christmas with the same story and artistry but in CG instead of stop motion? A huge chunk of the movie's original charm would be lost.

I also want to see 2D make a comeback. It just has so much more of an organic quality and poetry that you can't do with CG.

 

[Brer Panther]

Amusingly, there are plans for a traditionally-animated movie based on "Adventure Time", and LAIKA (thw guys that made "The BoxTrolls") has expressed interest in making one, too.

It seems as though everyone that ISN'T a big name in animated movies (as in Disney, DreamWorks, Blue Sky, ect.) wants to do styles other than CGI.

 

[imagineer boy]

I read somewhere also that Pixar is planning to do a 2-D animated short.

 

[Matt_Black]

I read somewhere also that Pixar is planning to do a 2-D animated short.

Wouldn't be surprised. They did that Combat Carl short for the Toy Story of Terror DVD and I was amazed at how well they made it look like an old school G.I. Joe PSA.

 

[Brer Panther]

Anyone else find DreamWorks hypocritical?

When their 2D films like The Road to El Dorado and Sinbad bombed, they blamed it on the art style. But when their CGI movies like Mr. Peabody and Sherman and Rise of the Guardians started to bomb, they didn't give up CGI movies.

 

[Tony Perkis]

Anyone else find DreamWorks hypocritical?

When their 2D films like The Road to El Dorado and Sinbad bombed, they blamed it on the art style. But when their CGI movies like Mr. Peabody and Sherman and Rise of the Guardians started to bomb, they didn't give up CGI movies.

Peabody grossed $275 worldwide.

Guardians grossed $305 worldwide.

Maybe they underperformed a bit compared to studio expectations, but neither bombed.

 

[Master Yoda]

I honestly think the problem is more with the general public than the studios.

The studios are going to give the public what they want. People have gotten use to seeing Pixar style animation and that it what the average Joe comes to expect when they go to see an animated movie. Anything less than that and it comes off as cheep or old fashioned to someone without a lot of appreciation for the medium.

 

[ShoalFox]

What, exactly, is Disney's problem with hand-drawn animation? When "The Princess and the Frog" bombed, they assumed it was because of the art style alone. They completely ignored that it was up against films like "Avatar" and "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel" and that there was very little marketing for it. But when a CGI film bombs, they just shrug it off. It's almost like they're biased.

It's a shame that this and the failures in the early 2000s killed traditional animation. As far as I see it, the only 2D Disney film from that period that was truly 'bad' was Home on the Range. IMO, Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Treasure Planet are two of the most underrated movies in the animated canon. I, for one, can't see why they bombed at the box office.

 

[Brer Panther]

During the early 2000s, people were I guess opposed to Disney doing something that wasn't a fairy tale musical. Though that doesn't explain why they flocked to see "Lilo and Stitch".

And I didn't think "Home on the Range" was THAT BAD...

 

[Matt_Black]

I think the issue is that all of the movies from that period were very atypical from anything that Disney had done before. Not just not being musicals, there was a focus on loves aside from romantic love, shift to science fiction over the typical fantasy, etc.

 

[stevehousse]

All of you are wrong! It comes down to time and money. It's takes twice as long to produce and finish a 2d hand drawn film over a cgi film, and it takes more people to make, which means more money spent. If you ran an animation company, from a business standpoint, which looks better on the books; 20+ people drawing 2 minutes of art over the course of a week, or half The amount of people doing it in a matter of days on a computer...

 

[Tony Perkis]

All of you are wrong! It comes down to time and money. It's takes twice as long to produce and finish a 2d hand drawn film over a cgi film, and it takes more people to make, which means more money spent. If you ran an animation company, from a business standpoint, which looks better on the books; 20+ people drawing 2 minutes of art over the course of a week, or half The amount of people doing it in a matter of days on a computer...

Toy Story 3 cost north of $200 million.

Point being: CG films are expensive and require as tremendous return on investment, and families will pretty much flock to almost any of these.

Hand drawn films require a great word of mouth or established properties.

 

[Brer Panther]

there was a focus on loves aside from romantic love

And yet "Frozen" becomes the highest-grossing animated film of all time. Go figure.