Disney officially done with 2D animation

Genie of the Lamp

Well-Known Member
All we know right now is that Robert said in the shareholders meeting that no 2d films are in development now. Apparently he forgot about Winnie the Pooh as being the last 2d film they made. Go figure. Although looking long term, the future of 2d animation is on life support as the studio leans toward CGI films. However, I still think that they'll at the very least make movies with the style of animation they adapted in Paperman since it was so critically acclaimed by the audiences and critics.
 

StarWarsGirl

Well-Known Member
A quick search told me this wasn't the only site with this information. Unfortunately, the 3D films have been better recently. Tangled was an excellent movie. Wreck-It Ralph was also excellent. The Princess and the Frog was okay, but not as good as the other two. There was a certain creative element, especially from Wreck-It Ralph, that made it better than the 2D animated films. Plus, they are more visually stunning. Rapunzel's hair would not have looked nearly as good in 2D.

But who knows. This isn't the first time Disney has said this, so it's possible they'll do some more 2D films.
 

MerlinTheGoat

Well-Known Member
I really don't like 3D animation, so this sucks tremendously if they really do get rid of it (which seems very likely for the reasons of sales regardless of how vague Iger or Lasseter were on the matter). I think the upcoming adaptation of the Snow Queen was originally going to be hand drawn but they canned that idea and decided to CGI it. I was quite disappointed in that. CGI just can't touch hand drawn animation.

A quick search told me this wasn't the only site with this information. Unfortunately, the 3D films have been better recently. Tangled was an excellent movie. Wreck-It Ralph was also excellent. The Princess and the Frog was okay, but not as good as the other two. There was a certain creative element, especially from Wreck-It Ralph, that made it better than the 2D animated films. Plus, they are more visually stunning. Rapunzel's hair would not have looked nearly as good in 2D.

But who knows. This isn't the first time Disney has said this, so it's possible they'll do some more 2D films.
I disagree entirely. I found Princess and the Frog to be superior to Tangled for the most part. The story that is. Even if Tangled had been in 2D and PATF was in 3D, I still liked PATF better. Though I do definitely believe gorgeous 2D animation improves an animated movie and the best hand drawn animation always beats the best CGI animation.

BTW Tangled would have looked absolutely wonderful in traditional animation. I wish it was in that style instead of CGI. I admittedly WOULD have enjoyed it more had it been (though the story and characters still wouldn't have been as good to me as PATF). And that includes the hair animation. If you want an animated movie that showed how incredible the artists can be with hair animation, look no further than Dreamworks' Sinbad from 2003 (gorgeous movie overall BTW). There's one particular villainess in the movie called Eris, who i'd easily argue may be some of if not THE best character animation i've ever seen in any animated movie. The way they animated her body and hair is just incredible, it's wonderful to watch. I'd say it looks similar to the motion they gave to Ursula's lower octopus body in Little Mermaid, though far more impressive.

There may be some spoilers here, but here are some clips of Eris and her incredible animation-


The scenery in Tangled at least looked decent for the sole reason that they attempted to really make the 3D animation look like it was hand drawn in parts. But even after all these years now the character designs still just don't look good at all. Whether a movie is using CGI or hand drawn also has nothing to do with how good it is from a story perspective. I do like Tangled but found it very disappointing in ways. I enjoyed both Wreck it Ralph and Meet the Robinsons more than Tangled from a story perspective, but I also largely disliked their animation and would have preferred 2D much more.

I also really loved the new Winnie the Pooh movie as well, it heavily surpassed all my expectations (which were already high). It's hilarious and has lovely 2D animation. It would have been a horrible shame had it been made solely using CGI instead and would have heavily dumbed down the experience.

Regardless of anything though, no animated movie Disney has made in the past 13 years or so now has been able to touch their 90's movies from a story perspective (let alone even the gorgeous animation or wonderful music). The one exception being Pocahontas being a disappointment, but even that at least had fantastic animation and music to offset its other flaws, so was still incredibly awesome to watch.

I'll also say that while I have enormous fondness for Pixar and like what Lasseter has accomplished, the past several years Pixar movies have had poorer story telling than anything Disney itself has made in the past few years. Particularly Cars 2 and even Brave (I knew going into Cars 2 that it was going to be crap but Brave was a massive disappointment to me). So really it would seem that it's box office profits that have become the crutch for bad storytelling, not so much the animation style. One of the movies mentioned in the article I dislike highly too (Bolt). But what can you say? Audiences have been rewarding mediocre or terrible movies lately (Twilight or the Transformers franchise) and not ones that really deserve the money.
 

StarWarsGirl

Well-Known Member
I really don't like 3D animation, so this sucks tremendously if they really do get rid of it (which seems very likely for the reasons of sales regardless of how vague Iger or Lasseter were on the matter). I think the upcoming adaptation of the Snow Queen was originally going to be hand drawn but they canned that idea and decided to CGI it. I was quite disappointed in that. CGI just can't touch hand drawn animation.


I disagree entirely. I found Princess and the Frog to be superior to Tangled for the most part. The story that is. Even if Tangled had been in 2D and PATF was in 3D, I still liked PATF better. Though I do definitely believe gorgeous 2D animation improves an animated movie and the best hand drawn animation always beats the best CGI animation.

BTW Tangled would have looked absolutely wonderful in traditional animation. I wish it was in that style instead of CGI. I admittedly WOULD have enjoyed it more had it been (though the story and characters still wouldn't have been as good to me as PATF). And that includes the hair animation. If you want an animated movie that showed how incredible the artists can be with hair animation, look no further than Dreamworks' Sinbad from 2003 (gorgeous movie overall BTW). There's one particular villainess in the movie called Eris, who i'd easily argue may be some of if not THE best character animation i've ever seen in any animated movie. The way they animated her body and hair is just incredible, it's wonderful to watch. I'd say it looks similar to the motion they gave to Ursula's lower octopus body in Little Mermaid, though far more impressive.

There may be some spoilers here, but here are some clips of Eris and her incredible animation-


The scenery in Tangled at least looked decent for the sole reason that they attempted to really make the 3D animation look like it was hand drawn in parts. But even after all these years now the character designs still just don't look good at all. Whether a movie is using CGI or hand drawn also has nothing to do with how good it is from a story perspective. I do like Tangled but found it very disappointing in ways. I enjoyed both Wreck it Ralph and Meet the Robinsons more than Tangled from a story perspective, but I also largely disliked their animation and would have preferred 2D much more.

I also really loved the new Winnie the Pooh movie as well, it heavily surpassed all my expectations (which were already high). It's hilarious and has lovely 2D animation. It would have been a horrible shame had it been made solely using CGI instead and would have heavily dumbed down the experience.

Regardless of anything though, no animated movie Disney has made in the past 13 years or so now has been able to touch their 90's movies from a story perspective (let alone even the gorgeous animation or wonderful music). The one exception being Pocahontas being a disappointment, but even that at least had fantastic animation and music to offset its other flaws, so was still incredibly awesome to watch.

I'll also say that while I have enormous fondness for Pixar and like what Lasseter has accomplished, the past several years Pixar movies have had poorer story telling than anything Disney itself has made in the past few years. Particularly Cars 2 and even Brave (I knew going into Cars 2 that it was going to be crap but Brave was a massive disappointment to me). So really it would seem that it's box office profits that have become the crutch for bad storytelling, not so much the animation style. One of the movies mentioned in the article I dislike highly too (Bolt). But what can you say? Audiences have been rewarding mediocre or terrible movies lately (Twilight or the Transformers franchise) and not ones that really deserve the money.

I disagree. Tangled was definitely better than Princess and the Frog. I found myself bored through parts of Princess and the Frog (though I must say, awesome villain). Tangled made me cry in the theater. Princess and the Frog...not so much. I found it rather predictable. I adore Bolt. Especially Mittens. I wish they had more Mittens merchandise because I adore her. Pooh was fine, but it was short. I don't really care one way or the other if it's in 2D or 3D, but then again, I'm not very visual.

Maybe it's because I was born in the 90's, so I don't remember most of the 90's, but I think Stitch, Bolt, Tangled, and several of those were just as good as the 90's stuff. Nothing compares to Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, but Disney has made some very good films in recent years. Though I won't throw films like Home on the Range, Chicken Little, and Brother Bear in that mix.
 

MerlinTheGoat

Well-Known Member
You don't have to be born in a certain era to appreciate movies that were before your time. The vast majority of my favorite movies and ones I'd consider to be among the best ever were released long before I was born. I'm even a fan of many old silent films.

Tangled to me felt rushed throughout most of the second half. It started off pretty strong (well, that is after the bad opening narration tried to kill the mood of the movie) but began letting me down around the time when they arrived at the Snuggly Duckling. After that it began to really drag. Flynn's backstory was underdeveloped, the town scene was incredibly rushed and deserved FAR more screentime than it got (I felt cheated because the movie started drawing me in with that scene again). And the villain wasn't very interesting, nor did they have an impressive presence in the movie to offset the blandness (the Shadow man in PATF was a cookie cutter villain himself but at least he had a great look with an awesome voice, presence, and song to offset that). The way they dealt with the villain at the end of Tangled was also really underwhelming and lacked the epic satisfaction that villains are usually exposed with.

The one thing i'll give the villain is a beautiful singing voice. But unfortunately I found a lot of the songs to be lacking as well, including the villain's. There's an attempt to follow through with a second part of the villain song to make it darker but it's WAY too short and I felt cheated when it didn't start to develop into a longer and more intense song (especially because I was really digging the actor's singing voice, what a waste of talent). Doesn't have any of the incredible tunes like Poor Unfortunate Souls, Be Prepared, and Hellfire (probably my pick for the greatest, most awesome, and most powerful villain songs EVER written, and my god what an awesome movie all around btw). My favorite song in Tangled was probably the healing song, again short but it has a lovely tune to it. Another good song is the one at the Lantern scene (the best scene in the movie, though again it would have looked SO much better in hand drawn). The rest are ok, but nothing that special compared to Disney movies from the 90's and before.

I did still enjoy Tangled, but I don't consider it a great movie. It entertained me and I've enjoyed it enough to watch it several times again. Bolt I didn't like at all. I found it unfunny and boring throughout (and most of the characters bland or annoying). I enjoyed both Meet the Robinsons and Wreck it Ralph though, humor in them was hit or miss but they had charming plots and fun characters. Stitch I do love, despite some flaws (though as an entire package it doesn't touch Beauty and the Beast for instance). I also enjoy Treasure Planet and Atlantis despite their own flaws (lots of stunning animation help keep it fresh as well).
 

Thrill Seeker

Well-Known Member
I disagree. Tangled was definitely better than Princess and the Frog. I found myself bored through parts of Princess and the Frog (though I must say, awesome villain). Tangled made me cry in the theater. Princess and the Frog...not so much. I found it rather predictable. I adore Bolt. Especially Mittens. I wish they had more Mittens merchandise because I adore her. Pooh was fine, but it was short. I don't really care one way or the other if it's in 2D or 3D, but then again, I'm not very visual.

Maybe it's because I was born in the 90's, so I don't remember most of the 90's, but I think Stitch, Bolt, Tangled, and several of those were just as good as the 90's stuff. Nothing compares to Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, but Disney has made some very good films in recent years. Though I won't throw films like Home on the Range, Chicken Little, and Brother Bear in that mix.

Tangled is better than PatF. From a story perspective, Tangled took a classic story and gave it a nice twist with Flynn Rider. PatF is an age old storyline pretty much told as you'd expect it to by Disney, set in New Orleans.

Visually, they both looked great. The art styles were both very good.

Music wise, they were also on par. Music was PatF's biggest asset thanks to Randy Newman. Tangled's music was also great.

Villian wise, I thought Gothel was pretty close, but just under Faciliae (sp?).

PatF was boring and kinda dragged in the middle. Tangled was entertaining throughout.

Tangled wins in my book.
 

StarWarsGirl

Well-Known Member
Tangled is better than PatF. From a story perspective, Tangled took a classic story and gave it a nice twist with Flynn Rider. PatF is an age old storyline pretty much told as you'd expect it to by Disney, set in New Orleans.

Visually, they both looked great. The art styles were both very good.

Music wise, they were also on par. Music was PatF's biggest asset thanks to Randy Newman. Tangled's music was also great.

Villian wise, I thought Gothel was pretty close, but just under Faciliae (sp?).

PatF was boring and kinda dragged in the middle. Tangled was entertaining throughout.

Tangled wins in my book.

You say my thoughts exactly. Plus, I think Flynn Rider is cute...just saying. Ya know, for a cartoon character. And yhe smolder....
 

MerlinTheGoat

Well-Known Member
I felt Tiana was a stronger lead character than Rapunzel. Rapunzel is very cute, but so is Tiana. She knows full well how to take care of herself in the world and also interesting to see a Disney heroin that was a work-aholic.

The only part I felt PATF dragged along in was briefly in the swamp before they meet Louis or Ray. I like a lot of the supporting characters in it much more than Tangled including Louis, Ray and Mama Odie. And especially Charlotte, she's adorable and hilarious! I don't have any preference between Flynn Rider or Prince Naveen though. Max the horse was pretty hilarious though, and Pascal was pretty cute. I actually liked some of the thugs at the Snugly Duckling, but I found them very underused and with very generic and bland designs (though I did like the drunk old man dressed up like a cherub, he'd hilarious).

I actually usually hate Randy Newman's music. But I do like several of the songs in PATF (some aren't very good though). Friends on the Other Side is a fantastic villain song (from a cool villain with a cool voice). Also liked Down in New Orleans and Almost There. The rest I can pretty much do without though, really no a fan of Newman (the only other songs I like of his are You've Got a Friend in Me and several in Toy Story 2). Tangled's music was more disappointing likely because I expect more out of the composer (who has made absolutely fantastic music in the past). The songs I did enjoy were way too short and I felt cheated on (the ones I mentioned above), the rest I was just meh about.

Animation wise there's no question in my mind that PATF looks better. The roles could easily have been the other way around had Tangled been in traditional animation, and to be fair the scenery at least does a remarkable job at looking good despite being in CGI. But CGI just can't beat the gorgeous hand drawn style. Particularly the character designs though. I highly dislike how the characters tend to look in these animated CGI movies. I find the CGI in these animated movies to be rather unappealing to look at for the most part (rare exceptions) and would much rather it be in hand drawn.

Gothel really let me down as a villain. Started out pretty strong and there was such great potential (and of course that wonderful singing voice), but they underplayed her in the ending and didn't give her the epic climax Disney villains need. The end as a whole felt very rushed, including her fate.

In terms of the original story of Rapunzel, not a lot does happen. Disney had to change a ton for it to be an engaging animated movie, and I fully expected them to do so. To an extent they did manage to do this, but it wasn't nearly to the extent I wanted them to. I find it good and solid, but not as good as I wanted. I found PATF surpassed a lot of the critical reception it got, but Tangled didn't quite live up to the praise it got.
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
Well, there IS that rumor about the Roger Rabbit/Mickey Mouse team-up film "The Stooge". If that's truly in the works, I don't see how it could be done without 2D animation. But who knows...
 

Yert3

Well-Known Member
CG animation is a fad that I hope dies off eventually. I really don't like it, though I do admit I enjoy it every now and then. Pixar is really the only one who has perfected the art. Disney has had a few CG hits (Tangled and Wreck-it Ralph being the few) To me, hand drawn died with The Little Mermaid. Every "hand drawn" film since then has been animated in CAPS. It may look hand drawn, but it was still made with a computer. I still think that looks way too synthetic. I wish they would return to hand traced cels or xerography, but unfortunately, that will NEVER happen.

Xerography:
videosong.jpg


CAPS:
winnie-the-pooh-2011-15.jpg


Xerography:
640px-Rescuers-disneyscreencaps_com-4102.jpg


CAPS:
600full-the-rescuers-down-under-screenshot.jpg


See what I mean?
 

G00fyDad

Well-Known Member
I will consider this false until it comes from a site other than one named I Heart Chaos. o_O Besides, this rumor has been around a while.
 

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
CG animation is a fad

o_O Um, ya, OK.

To me, hand drawn died with The Little Mermaid. Every "hand drawn" film since then has been animated in CAPS. It may look hand drawn, but it was still made with a computer.

No, they were just inked annd painted with a computer. The actual character animation was still done on paper, with a pencil. Saying otherwise is an outright lie, and one that would be laughed at over at WDFA.

You can even tell this when looking at HD screencaps of these movies and see the outlines are really coloured pencil lines: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=22283&position=17

Also, Home on the Range was the last movie to use the CAPS system. Since then it has been replaced with a different program for inking and painting.
 

Yert3

Well-Known Member
Um, ya, OK.
Many other animation forums think so. http://www.toonzone.net/forums/disn...te-2d-animated-films-disney.html#.UT5HvNE9DBE



No, they were just inked annd painted with a computer. The actual character animation was still done on paper, with a pencil. Saying otherwise is an outright lie, and one that would be laughed at over at WDFA.

Yes, I know this. But the final product was still digital, no physical cels ever existed. Xerography is my favorite because it's just basically the original animation drawing photocopied on to a piece of celluloid. Digital ink and paint just doesn't look as good to me and not as fun to watch.


Also, Home on the Range was the last movie to use the CAPS system. Since then it has been replaced with a different program for inking and painting.

I didn't know this because I couldn't really care less about how animation is made if it isn't done with hand painted cels. I guess I just didn't know because all of the documentaries I've seen only have gone up to the CAPS era and I assumed they still used it. What program do they use now?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom