As of February, guests will no longer be able to see a trained Disney Artist who is d

[barnum42]

If we follow the logic of "In the end, it's about business, profits and losses. The bottom line is the bottom line." then let's close all live theatres - there is so much more technology in the cinema than a play. You have to pay the actors and stage for every performance, I mean that's not following the bottom line.

Actually, lets close the cinemas, we don't need them because there is TV, TV is more convenient, the customer does not have to leave their homes and the corporations don't have to maintain a movie house.

As it's all about the bottom line, lets lay off all the workers because we can can eight year olds in the Far East to put the goods together for a few cents a day. WOW look at all the money we can make.

Get the British to dismantle their National Health Service, if you don't show compassion and help the sick then you can make more money for yourself.

I'll probably get flamed again and called a leftie, but the bottom line I'm talking about (in general life, not just animation) is that common decency and compassion should not bow to greed. I worked for a corporation that claimed to have Christian values, but they conveniently forget the ones about "do unto others" and "love thy neighbour" when they could screw more money for themselves at the expense of others.

 

[dandaman]

I wrote a short poem, to commemorate (sp?) the Disney artists:

The artistic gurus at the head of Disney's "team",
Were told that they could work no more; their eyes began to gleam.
"What just happened?", they began to talk, in a saddened state of chatter.
A man spoke up, "Magic or cheap movies, and Disney chose the latter!"
"But where is the magic?", a woman had stated.
The man replied, "The magic has faded.
We know not where we are going from here.
Our jobs our no more!", his anger quite clear.
"It is barbaric, insulting, and rotten
to be treated like this; we are the forgotten."
It might be cost-cutting, it might be a con,
But one thing is certain: the magic is gone.

 

[PurpleDragon]

However, let's be honest. With all the advancements in technology, there is really no LARGE market for hand-drawn feature animation anymore. The competition has moved beyond that, and so too must Disney.

I couldn't disagree with you more. 3D animation is merely a new medium from wich to draw from, it is by no means a replacement for the traditional form of animation. So many close minded people have said that without looking at the facts. The facts are that no matter what medium you use weather it be 2D animation or 3D animation it is the story that carries the movie, the type of animation plays a big roll in the outcome, but without a good story then its not going to draw the crowds. 3D animation is the current IN thing to do right now according to the market anylists, but it is not going to replace traditional hand drawn animation.

Case in point, look at Polar Express! In all aspects it was a flop, it did poorly at the box office and numerous articles were written about how it was eerie and unsettling because the attempt at realizm. Then look at the Spongebob Squarepants movie, it did phenominal in the box office, and guess what it is a 2D animated film. So that proves that there is still a strong market for the traditional art form, and shows that 3D animation can only go so far before it becomes dull and cold.

I don't deny that 3D animation is at the fore front of the industry right now, and it is doing well. But it will never outright replace traditional animation, it will simply become another media for expression.

Traditional animation will always exist, it is the foundation for all other forms of animation and design.

 

[Scooter]

I couldn't disagree with you more. 3D animation is merely a new medium from wich to draw from, it is by no means a replacement for the traditional form of animation. So many close minded people have said that without looking at the facts. The facts are that no matter what medium you use weather it be 2D animation or 3D animation it is the story that carries the movie, the type of animation plays a big roll in the outcome, but without a good story then its not going to draw the crowds. 3D animation is the current IN thing to do right now according to the market anylists, but it is not going to replace traditional hand drawn animation.

Case in point, look at Polar Express! In all aspects it was a flop, it did poorly at the box office and numerous articles were written about how it was eerie and unsettling because the attempt at realizm. Then look at the Spongebob Squarepants movie, it did phenominal in the box office, and guess what it is a 2D animated film. So that proves that there is still a strong market for the traditional art form, and shows that 3D animation can only go so far before it becomes dull and cold.

I don't deny that 3D animation is at the fore front of the industry right now, and it is doing well. But it will never outright replace traditional animation, it will simply become another media for expression.

Traditional animation will always exist, it is the foundation for all other forms of animation and design.

No Offence...but I'd hardly call Polar Express's over $162 MILLION box office dollars a flop.
Now...Lets talk about Shrek 1 and Shrek 2 :lol:

 

[MKCP 1985]

alot of discussion, but General Grizz posted on January 30 that this may be the last week for the animators. Well today is Friday so I ask, IS IT?

I'll be in the studios park tomorrow, and by the time I get back on Wednesday, it will be old news, but I'll share what I saw on Saturday.

 

[PurpleDragon]

No Offence...but I'd hardly call Polar Express's over $162 MILLION box office dollars a flop.
Now...Lets talk about Shrek 1 and Shrek 2 :lol:

It actually is!! The $162 Million is well be low the projected return they hoped to get from the movie, considering the movie costs about $170 million to make. So that means they lost roughly $8 million on the film, I WOULD CALL THAT A FLOP!!!

They tried too hard to mimic reality and thus crossed the line from cute to creepy.

Spongebob costed $30 Million to make and it grossed $100 Million worldwide, thats a pretty damn good return in comparison.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

MKCP 1985: alot of discussion, but General Grizz posted on January 30 that this may be the last week for the animators. Well today is Friday so I ask, IS IT?

Do you really need to see the corpse?

Hennie, I'm afraid we have to agree to disagree on this one. I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree. Disney is in the business of art and creativity. To expand on what Lefty...I mean Barnum said. Why should Disney have stage shows, where things go wrong and people miss lines and we comment here on it. Just show a film, it's perfect every time. Why do we waste so much money on art galleries and museums. I can see all of that in books or video...oh, and technology has supplanted books as well, shouldn't Barnes and Noble be keeping up with technology?

I think the point has been well stated in this thread, that the difference between 2D and 3D is that many of the newer 3D movies have had better stories than 2D. And even with 3D, you need the same artists to start the process. All 3D that I know starts out as 2D, goes to another artist to make a clay model. Programmers don't write the stories either.

The cost saved by this move is not even a drop in the bucket on the financial front.

I have to deal with this regularly in work. It is simple to cross out names from a list, move numbers and 0's and commas around. Until you can sit across a desk from someone, look them in the eye and tell them they are no longer needed (especially when you know it is due to bureaucracy or beancounters short term balance sheets), this discussion shouldn't be made. And if you can without it haunting you, I feel you are part of the current dysfunctional business climate. The same one telling us outsourcing is good for business.

 

[PurpleDragon]

My heart goes out to all those passionate animators whos only dream was to work for the Walt Disney Company. The greed and deceit in this company has torn apart one of the greatest animation department the industry. A department that was founded by Walt himself and the legacy carried on by his "9 Old Men". It seems that the only thing the beancounters up at WDC want to do with that legacy is to toss it aside and replace it with the next quick money maker.

I sincerely hope that you talented animators will be able to land on your feet and continue to hold your head up high, knowing that you are the last of a dying breed of proud animators taught by the students of Walt and his "9 Old Men". I thank you for the work you have done and hope this tragedy will not sway your dedication to the art.

 

[HennieBogan1966]

Barnum and Purple

Here's what I am saying. In the end, if there is no market for your product, then it is a losing proposition to continue putting good money after bad. Again, not trying to discount the importance of animation as it relates to the history and legacy of the company. What I AM saying is that if Disney doesn't see a viable market (insert audience) for this product, there's no reason to continue to invest money into it. If animation were all the rage, then ALL movie studios would be using it, versus any other form of movie production. We could make the argument that it's made a comeback over the last several years, and I would agree with that. But has it made enough of a comeback to compete with other forms of movie production? And let's remember that Disney tends to cater to a very specific audience with regard to their feature animation movies. An example would be to compare any full length feature to any of Disneys latest projects in feature animation. While you could make the case in terms of real dollars made, you would also have to admit that the audiences would probably be very different, if you were comparing the latest Ben Affleck movie, versus Nemo, Stitch, The Incredibles, etc. Now, when you boil it down to the parks, the cases again become much more specific. Even more so than full length features. Now you're talking about an attraction that needs to maintain certain foot traffic numbers in order to show that there's an audience for that attraction. When a ride is changed for something new, it's USUALLY because Disney has what they believe to be a fresh idea, that will lead to more riders than the previous attraction.

So you see in the end, it IS about numbers, profits and losses, and the bottom line. I'm not really disagreeing with the heartfelt feelings of those who don't want this change to take place. Neither do I. I'm just saying that I understand why it's happening, even though I may not like the alternative.

 

[barnum42]

So you see in the end, it IS about numbers, profits and losses, and the bottom line. I'm not really disagreeing with the heartfelt feelings of those who don't want this change to take place. Neither do I. I'm just saying that I understand why it's happening, even though I may not like the alternative.

We all see why it's happening - personal greed over simple human decency.

 

[trackbarroness]

Hello I saw you on my last visit to WDW. Sorry I didn't stay long enough to chat I was visiting with my Mom so had to spend the time with here. Sorry 'bout that 9Oldmen. One of my other favorite Animater was on stage for the chat with Mushu, cute dragon but I can see what you mean about how he can be annoying. I loathe what's happening. Hopefully it won't take management long to figure out the major mistake they made of replacing true talent with attraction Cast Members. I can't see attending the Academy with someone who has no real talent to show/teach me how to draw a Disney character, or any kind of character for that matter. Oh btb Lou says hello.
Hugs,
Sandy

 

[HennieBogan1966]

So Barnum

What is your idea for keeping this attraction then? What is your idea for improving guest numbers at the attraction? How do you tie it in with current technology being used in current animated productions? How much should be invested in this, and how long should it be given to turn a profit?

 

[tigger248]

What is your idea for improving guest numbers at the attraction?

I know that post wasn't aimed at me, but I just wanted to comment on this question. How would using tracers improve guest numbers? It seems that fewer people will want to see the tracers than the artists. Of course, I'm basing this on what I've seen online but people don't want tracers. We can trace at home, there's nothing magical about it. Meeting a real artist is magical and makes for a great, unique guest experience. It keeps people coming back. Even those who don't yet know of this change, will notice it on their next visit. This attraction's repeatability (is that a word?) is in danger with this change. Fewer people will want to go back for repeat visits if all they're learning is how to trace. It seems as if this attraction is getting sabotaged by management for eventual closer. So sad.

 

[trackbarroness]

re tracing

I agree with you Kristin about the tracing. I all ready know how to trace, and to a point draw, but what I've always enjoyed was/is meeting people who can bring more to a piece of paper then just a 1D drawing. If any of you saw any of my drawings you would agree that their just 1D with little or no talent. That's just mo about my own drawing ability. And yes I know I'm not that great at typing either. :wave:
Have a magical day
Sandy

 

[barnum42]

What is your idea for keeping this attraction then? What is your idea for improving guest numbers at the attraction? How do you tie it in with current technology being used in current animated productions? How much should be invested in this, and how long should it be given to turn a profit?

Gut the place and install a dwarf with a box of matches. It will be as useful and cost even less than an CP with a pile of tracing paper.

I'm just sick of greedy fat cats shafting people in the name of their own personal gain and other people using this greed to justify being terrible human beings.

You should not put a Dollar value on compassion.

 

[HennieBogan1966]

Who are the people (specifically) who are the greedy fat cats that are making money off of this. It's easy to throw out accusations without proof of said accusations. Where the rubber meets the road is when you can PROVE there is collusion.

 

[barnum42]

Who are the people (specifically) who are the greedy fat cats that are making money off of this. It's easy to throw out accusations without proof of said accusations. Where the rubber meets the road is when you can PROVE there is collusion.

The sky is blue. I can't provide you with chemical and physics related reasons and proof for why this is. I just open my eyes and see it.

In the same vein, that is by opening my eyes I see that the parks have been rife with cutbacks. They don't do that to improve the show. They do it to maximise profits. This is used as the get out clause for mistreating people. The execs at the top who recently paid themselves multi million dollar bonuses have to get the money from some place.

It's not just Disney, it's become the normal thing to do and people accept it, if you chose to be one of these people so be it, we will have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[HennieBogan1966]

I won't disagree that many people in key mgmt. positions all over the world are overpaid for their services. But to make the broad accusation that people at Disney are doing this and sacrificing the quality of the show is again, easy to do, without proof. All I am asking for is for solid evidence, beyond what YOUR eyes see, so as to validate your claim. Beleive me, I didn't drink the cool-aid. When I've read, and heard comments about the bonuses that were paid to people like Mr. Eisner, Mr. Ovitz, etc. etc., it does make me sick. But here's what I also know. They didn't vote THEMSELVES those salaries and bonuses. You know who did? The board did. THOSE are THE PEOPLE who, if any, are sacrificing the quality of the show for fat checks. Don't blame someone for asking for a large salary, or for negotiating bonuses. Happens ALL the time in sports. Incentive-laden contracts are the norm in big business these days. As well as signing bonuses. So, while I will agree that these things happen and are commonplace in big business, what I AM saying is that I won't make the accusation without some sort of proof.

 

[Lauriebar]

Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean you don't understand it. My feelings are basically the same as Barnum's, I feel that it cannot be good business to cut the heart out of Disney by getting rid of the artists. Even though I understand that right now 3D animation is the rage and may very well be for years to come, I just can't justify the idea that the Disney trained 2D artist is an unneeded thing to the soul of the company.

You can show me all of the arguements in the world about progress and "it just makes good business sense" and it won't change the feeling I have in the pit of my stomach that tells me that this might very well be a huge turning point in the history of the Disney Company, and I don't mean a good one.

When it comes down to it, these are simply my feelings about a company that has given me a lot of wonderful memories and experiences throughout my life. That's all, no more and no less. However, I can assure you that just because I understand the thought processes behind this business decision and I understand that making money and lots of it is the American way of doing business, I am not going to excuse what I feel is a gross misjudgement on the part of the Disney Company.

Needing proof to justify my feelings is a cop out.

 

[HennieBogan1966]

I'm not sure if I understand exactly how this would negatively impact the company over the long term. I don't like the idea of doing away with the animators, but again, someone has to take the lead here as it relates to the business side of this situation. If Disney kept everyone on, kept all the rides, and just kept expanding, can you imagine the cost just to go to the parks? I mean operational costs continue to increase, and if the min. wage increases much over the next several years, you can count on the fact that the cost to visit will as well.

I'm in agreement that I don't like the idea. But I completely understand the need sometimes, to downsize for the long term health of the company. And if you have an area where you can do that, then that's what has to be done.
It's certainly not the popular view, but a necessary one.