-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
The Guardian: Disney turns away from hand-drawn animation
- Thread starter MacVenture
- Start date
Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
What a bummer. Well, when Iger finally gets the boot, maybe things will change...
bsiev1977
Well-Known Member
Why would things change? CGI animation is what people want to see,and it brings in a lot of money for the studios.
Princess and the Frog had a budget of 105 million, brought in a bit more than 267 million at the box office.
Wreck it Ralph had a budget of 165 million, and brought in 435 million box office.
Why would Disney not keep things as they are?
turbosnatch
Member
Couple reasons
A. Hand drawn anime is how TWDC started.
B. Disney once was a pioneer in entertainment. Why does every cartoon have to be CGI. Every studio is doing CGI why cant there be room for 2d anime every couple of years? Why must Disney follow and not lead?
C. Hand drawn 2d has a certain charm CGI will never capture(opinion)
D. Why must it always be about money. PATF made money but does 2d have to make more the 3d? It still was a success. There are some things you cant measure with formulas and stats. Yes i know Disney is a business blah blah
E. Because some people still enjoy 2d hand drawn features. 267million in revenue for PATF is a testament to that!
DisneyGuyNYC
Well-Known Member
Paperman
clarksfan95
Member
Don't confuse Anime with traditional American animation. I know it's a technicality, but Anime comes mostly from Japan and is a different style of animation medium that is not usually done in the states, let alone by Disney.
There is a thread in the Animation Forum on this website following this story. Keep in mind that this isn't the first time that Disney has done this. They've done it many times over the 15 or so years. The thing that most people forget is that Walt was always looking for the advancement in technology to better tell his stories with. Had he had the opportunity to use computer animation, I have no doubt that he would have. I think too many assume that Disney is strictly a 2D animation studio. The reason so many of the features are 2D is because the technology for 3D was not there for the first 50-60 years of animated film history.
The style of animation should never matter as long as the story is good...a problem that Disney has had for quite a while. They've lost many good story people to either old age or competition and their tales have become weaker and weaker over time. Add in that Disney tried churning out animated films every year and sometimes twice a year and you start to get these watered down, rushed projects that were not very good.
I honestly believe that if 3D had been invented before 2D then Disney would've been founded on 3D animation then everyone would be up in arms now because they were attempting to go 2D. 3D animation is also not finished evolving...it's still getting better and better technology and looks-wise. Disney is still a pioneer in entertainment, but their role has changed, I would consider Pixar to be the front-running pioneer now...I consider them to be more Disney than even Disney is.
admireandlearn
Member
Look at the 90s. CGI animation was around, but people still flocked to the cinemas to see Pocahontas, Mulan, Hercules, Tarzan, to name but a few. It is like ever since the turn of the century, Disney have given up on hand-drawn animation. There is no reason why - if they put the effort in - they couldn't re-create some of that 90s magic.
lego606
MagicBandit
That right there is the reason. It's about what will make the most money for the shareholder. If Disney can make a movie that will bring in $400M vs $200M, they'll pick the $400M one every time. Maximizing investment and whatnot. It stinks but it's the way these giant (and old) corporations run.
turbosnatch
Member
Yes i know. Anime is short for animation. But the sole reason for anime as a medium is from Disneys 2d animation. The japanese say A-Ni-ME in katakana which is a take on animation.
turbosnatch
Member
Absolutely. I compare it this way. 3d animation(wink) is like an E ticket and D tickets. 2d animation is A through C tickets. Everyone visits disney(as far as rides are concerned) for the E and D ticket rides. Thats where you see spikes in attendance when they open. So does that mean they should only build E and D ticket rides? Yes they are more expensive to build but that drives higher ticket sales and merch(HI Potter).
Thrill
Well-Known Member
That profit differential is not that impactful. Based on half of box office revenue as studio income, PatF made about $30 million, Ralph made about $50 million. Keep in mind, marketing budgets are not accounted for. Besides, you can't compare these movies accurately; they're fundamentally different in target market and marketing. Princess and the Frog CGI-edition would have cost a bit more to produce and probably wouldn't have made much of an impact at the box office. Wreck it Ralph 2D edition would have cost a bit less to produce and made a bit less due to the loss of 3D ticket price inflation.
There's a certain look and feel to 2D animation that CGI can't handle. It's not about the latest and greatest technology all the time; it's about using the best tool for the job. Fantasia wouldn't be the same in CGI. Heck, Christopher Nolan has the ability of making 3D movies, but he insists on filming in 2D because of the look. Inception, The Dark Knight Rises, they don't use all of modern technology because they don't have to. Traditional filmmaking techniques are still useful and even necessary.
admireandlearn
Member
Hmm I must say I think PATF would have performed much better if it was CGI. I think traditional animation can still appeal if it is a new, fresh idea (i.e. Lion King, Lilo & Stitch), but PATF was a cliché princess story. If it was CGI, it would have made it seem more modern.
For example if Tangled was traditionally animated, I don't imagine it would have been anywhere near as successful.
Thrill
Well-Known Member
Tangled isn't just a CGI princess story, though. It was a CGI princess story marketed in a way Disney never marketed before. Disney stole DreamWorks' marketing tactics. The trailer, with the pop music and slapstick humor, is a perfect example. There's also something called the "DreamWorks Face," which is a crooked eyebrow raise used in almost every piece of Dreamworks marketing material (check out the posters for such films as Megamind, Bee Movie, Kung Fu Panda). Disney has used this in CGI works, including Tangled.
Let's rename Tangled to Rapunzel, replace the marketing material with more traditional Disney tactics, drop the budget by $155 million. Does Rapunzel gross $600 million? Not even close. Even if you hold the budget steady, still no.
AllyInWonderland
Well-Known Member
RIP hand-drawn animation 
admireandlearn
Member
I know Tangled was a one-off, but still, I don't think that completely negates my point about PATF being more appealing in CGI.
MOXOMUMD
Well-Known Member
It's going to become a lost art.RIP hand-drawn animation
admireandlearn
Member
I wouldn't go that far, even if it dies on the big screen, there'll always be a place for it on TV.
Thrill
Well-Known Member
They've been saying this for 15 years and I have no reason to believe that hand drawn animation is on its way out yet. Disney had a short hiatus of hand drawn animation before, and it came back. Even if the current plans are to take out the hand drawn division, they might come to their senses eventually.
MOXOMUMD
Well-Known Member
I really hope they come to their senses. As long as there's an interest they should go with it.