Is this the year 2013 or the 30s????
Disney should really make up their mind if they want to cherish their 2D heritage or excommunicate it.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Really? You're going to take a story about a short that no one has even seen yet and then try & make this an indictment of how Walt Disney Studios has supposedly turned its back on hand-drawn animation? That's kind of sad, Jake.
I mean, no disrespect to the hundreds of talented artists & animators who used to do hand-drawn animation at Disney Studios. But you know, back in the late 1960s / early 1970s, there were all these guys who worked at Disney making special effects-driven live-action comedies like "Blackbeard's Ghost" and "Now You See Him, Now You Don't." And I don't recall any film fans talking about what a national tragedy it was when Disney stopped making those sorts of movies.
Look, the most important word in the phrase "Show Business" is "Business." And one of Hollywood's hard realities is that if a certain type of movie isn't selling as many tickets as it used to, then the studios just stop making those sorts of movies. Look what happened with that string of big movie musicals in the 1960s. Everyone rushed to get into that business after they saw all the money that Disney made off of "Mary Poppins" and 20th Century Fox made off of "The Sound of Music." Now jump ahead 5 years and when Fox almost went under because both "Dr. Dolittle" & "Hello, Dolly!" under-performed at the box office ... Most of the majors avoided making big budget movie musicals for decades after that all because they saw what almost happened to Fox.
And (to be blunt) kind of the same thing has been going on with hand-drawn for 15 years or so. I mean, you did notice that -- long before Disney began winding down its hand-drawn operation -- that Fox & DreamWorks Animation had gotten out of the hand-drawn business? All because ticket sales for these sorts of films had begun falling off in a big, big way. Which suggested that audience's tastes were changing That they were now looking for something different when it came to feature-length animated films.
So now -- in this age where Walt Disney Animation Studios is facing increasing competition when it comes to feature-length animated films (what with Pixar & DreamWorks Animation & Blue Sky Studios & Sony Pictures Animation, to name just a few) -- you're really going to insist that Disney continue to make movies like "Princess and the Frog" and "Winnie the Pooh" (which -- if you'll go over to Box Office Mojo and check -- you'll see had pretty underwhelming ticket sales) rather than animated films like "Tangled" and "Wreck-It Ralph" that people actually wanted to go see and are willing to buy tickets for all because of -- what? -- nostalgia?
Look, Jake, that's not how Hollywood works. Particularly these days when -- because movies now cost so damned much to make & market -- the Studios want a certain level of security when they then greenlight a project. Which is why you're seeing so many reboots & remakes these days. The suits in the corner offices want assurances that they're actually going to get a return of their Studio's investment. And if they can't get that assurances, Well, then that movie does not get made.
And when it comes to hand-drawn animation, all you have to do is look at the declining ticket sales for every hand-drawn feature over the past 15 years. The evidence is right there in black & white, Jake. People just aren't interested in these types of movies the way that they used to be. Which is why the Studios -- whenever they're funding the production of animated features these days -- insist that these productions be done in CG.
So instead of condemning Disney for seeming to abandon hand-drawn animated features (which -- from what I hear -- really isn't the case. Lasseter still thinks that there's an audience & an appetite out there for these kinds of films. It's just that -- for today's audiences -- hand-drawn has to be reinvented in such a way that it then looks new & different. Which will hopefully then be enough to excite people into buying tickets for these types of animated films again. Hence WDAS' experiments like last year's "Paperman" short. Which married hand-drawn's linework to CG's ease of use), why aren't we applauding Disney for hanging in there as long as they did? I mean, long after all of the other Studios had abandoned hand-drawn, Disney was still in there swinging. Bucking the trend. Fighting the tide. Making movies like "Brother Bear," "Home on the Range," "Princess and the Frog," "Winnie the Pooh." Plus shorts like "The Ballad of Loch Ness." All in an effort to prove that the audience for hand-drawn animation hadn't actually gone away. When -- in fact -- it had.
So how is it Disney's fault that audience's tastes in animated film have now changed? As a publicly held company, isn't it the responsibility of Disney's Board of Directors (More importantly, the BOD's responsibility to to the Company's shareholders) to make the sorts of movies that people today are actually willing to buy tickets for? Things like "Marvel's The Avengers" ? Which -- just in case you didn't notice -- is loaded with animation. Just CG / visual effects type animation.
I just wish it were possible to have a non emotional, actual adult conversation about the whole hand-drawn situation these days. But instead, you have things like that faux memorial service that Cartoon Brew is planning on holding at Comic Con where people are supposed to go in and mourn the passing of hand-drawn animation. Which -- I think, anyway -- would be hugely insulting to the tons of people in the animation industry (who -- admittedly -- mostly work in television) who still work in 2D. People don't want to have an in-depth, intelligent conversation about this issue. They just want to be overly dramatic and say things like "Disney is turning its back on that Studio's heritage." When that's really not what's going on here at all.
Disney -- in a lot of ways -- is a company that has always kept an eye on the future. Not where the consumer is right now, but -- rather -- where they'll be in a year, two years, five years. I mean, think back to 1953 when Walt Disney signed that TV deal with ABC. At that time, all of the other movie studios in the business viewed television as the enemy. They were going to go down fighting, rolling out things like 3D or Cinemascope or stereophonic sound. Whatever it took to make that little box & its black & white tube look inadequate. Whereas Walt .. Well, he saw TV as the way of the future. Not only because that ABC deal helped him fund the construction of Disneyland. But also because the "Disneyland" TV show could then be used to help make the public aware of his then-under-construction theme park and/or promote then-upcoming releases like "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea."
So if you want to keep looking backwards, Jake, and mourn what the Walt Disney Company used to be ... Well, that's your choice. Me? I'm the kind who likes looking forward. I'm interested in what's just over the horizon. So rather than mourn that WDAS isn't making full-length, hand-drawn animated features anymore, I'm more intrigued to see how they're going to build on the success of CG projects like "Tangled" and "Wreck-It Ralph." Because -- if the rumors coming out of Burbank are true -- "Frozen" is a big fat hit. The (if you'll allow me to make a Second Golden Age of Disney Animation comparison here) "Beauty and the Beast" to "Tangled" 's "Little Mermaid." The movie that's going to get the message across to the movie-going public that Walt Disney Animation Studios is back in a big, big way.
I mean, isn't that what you want Walt Disney Animation Studios to be doing these days? Making the sorts of animated films that a huge audience really wants to go see and experience? Rather the sorts of hand-drawn films that only hardcore Disney fans & animation enthusiasts will pay to see?
