According to many websites and Disney Animation spokespeople, Home on the Range will be the last Disney animated 2-D film.
To Me it dosen't matter as long as the script is well written and the voices are chosen right.
What do you think about this?
I think it would really be a shame if Disney would stop permanently with 2-D. It still is a valid artform. My hope is that, if they do turn their attention to 3D now, they will return to 2-D again in the future.
sharetrue dat, I love 2-d. without it classics like the lion king and beauty and the beast would not exist!
U are a disgrace to french aliens! - Escobar Tounge
[deleted]
[deleted]
the way that animation is evolving, 3d is the obviously the next mainstream medium. the artists nowadays are getting better, and the quality of the work is increasingly getting better as well. anything from pixar is an example of that. thus, casting a shadow over anything rendered 2d. as a loyal worker in the 2d animation world. i'm saddened by this news that Home on the Range would be Disney's last classically animated film. i've somewhat felt that classical animation is slowly going the way of the dinosaurs, and this news is a huge eye-opener that the Ice Age is inevitable. sighh... back to school for me, and hop on the 3d bandwagon...
shareWell I heard not long ago that home on the range WOULD be their last 2D film. But having read other interviews and extracts, Ive discovered that there are several films scheduled to be produced in traditional animation. And apparently, although disney will venture into computer animation, 2D films will continue to be made alongside 3D films.
Silly Rabbit. Tricks are for kids.
That is true, but Dreamworks proved to us when Sinbad was released that they can not make a great 2d film. Dreamworks makes a lot of money on their 3d films like Shrek.
WB is kind of losing their touch as well. Looney Tunes: Back in Action looks like it will be a flop. Space Jam did well but not as well as expected.
Universal is more of a 3d kind of studios.
Paramount is horrible at 2d films. The Rugrats Movie/In Paris/Go Wild, Wild Thornberries Movie, and Hey Arnold the Movie made Nickelodeon/Paramount look like a joke.
So it is true 2d animation will still be around. But what good is it when it is being put to use to cheap films like these.
[deleted]
Well, for Dreamworks, 3-D may be their niche. For Disney, 2-D is their original niche. Soon I think 2-D will have a classical resurgence. People will demand it for the nostalgia factor! For me, I am really looking forward to BV's Home on the Range. The voice choices, i.e.Cuba Gooding JR, Judy Dench, Sarah Jessica Parker, Rosanne Barr, are brilliant!
shareI agree. I don't really care for those spin-off movies of cartoon series'. I thought I heard somewhere that Pixar was severing ties with Disney or something like that.
shareAll that's needed is better scripts and concepts.
It's not because the medium of hand-drawn animation sucks that so many have bombed lately. It's because the SCRIPTS suck. Scripts, concepts, and overall, the films themselves. No wonder Sinbad failed so miserably.
When I saw Ice Age, the CGI wasn't exactly the best. It was still a great movie because it was hilarious and it was interesting. (though it was stuck with the ever dreaded cliche that just CAN'T be avoided in animated films, the friendship/betrayal thing) I knew that the CGI wasn't the reason Ice Age was a success.
"I did absolutely nothing today and it was everything I ever dreamed it would be."
[deleted]
Yeah, it is too bad that people blame the medium instead of what is really at fault, like story, character development, script, etc. It's not a coincidence that the "Death of 2-D" comes after a series of movies that were either poor or mediocre: Atlantis (Ugh.), Titan AE (BLECH!), Road to El Dorado (Meh.), Spirit, Treasure Planet and now Sinbad.
Also, no one seems to make the connection - that most of these films are bad for *exactly* the same reason: they rely on ACTION scenes instead of character development. 2-D is a TERRIBLE medium for action, because the films are too short to incorporate it without sacrificing character dialogue and story development. Some of these have been *borderline good* - Like El Dorado, but it sadly fell victim to Dreamworks's usual weakness: unsatisfactory plot pace and resolution; its story comes to a screeching halt once the guys get "settled" in El Dorado. Spirit had great potential, but was all eye candy and no plot and a minimal script. Sinbad had potential, too, but again too much action... not enough dialogue or depth of character.
Brother Bear is actually quite a good film, and would do fine if people would just give it a chance. As far as story and script go, it has the potential to be what Lilo and Stitch was.. but 2-D has let people down too many times now. They just don't trust it.
But another round of nails in this coffin can be traced right back to Disney. All the 2-D sequels are cheap and crappy, and have left their impression on people. They now associate 2-D with "BAD MOVIE."
But, I'm sure they'll start making 3-D flops soon. I would guess that 2-D will come back in at least a limited capacity within the next 10 years or so.
Home on the Range...? If it does well, it will be due to a funny script. But again, it may be too late for 2-D, because people just won't give it a chance anymore. They won't even go to see it, as is the case with Brother Bear.
"2-D is a TERRIBLE medium for action, because the films are too short to incorporate it without sacrificing character dialogue and story development"
you need to watch more japanese animation...the amount of action and character/story development that can take place in one 22 minute TV episode is insane...and it's all because of the writing and a degree of creativity and imagination that is often lacking in western animation. it has nothing to do with the number of dimensions.
Like the head of the animation department at the University I'm attending says: Just because photography came along doesn't mean that portrait painting went out. Just because 3D came along doesn't mean that 2D is out (unless it is just for a while). I'm confident that 2D will rise above its slump, especially since Pixar is opening a 2D animation studio, and since those guys know exactly how to tell a story and make interesting characters, 2D will be back in style before you know it.
Incidentally, I find that anime often LACKS the amount of development on character, story, relationships that it often needs. Just a different perspective, but I really think Disney's major problem is story and character (which explains Pixar's massive popularity, they have character and writing DOWN).
Re: Japanese animation
Well, maybe it is the approach that Western animation producers take, but so far there hasn't been a SINGLE animated action movie out of ANY western studio that has included satisfactory character development.
As far as the Japanese productions go, they may have plenty of action and character development, but they are too confusing (in the eyes of most moviegoing American audiences) to be enjoyable.
So I'm sure there is a cultural thing there at work, too, but the point remains that no Western studio has achieved it yet, and the Japanese productions that achieve it (*maybe* Mononoke Hime) are still hard to understand because there's just too much going on when you add action to a detailed plot and character development.
And let's face it, independent of animation, even LIVE action "Action Films" are generally pretty light on character development, unless they've been made longer to incorporate time for it.
too bad, i love the 2-D's.I like the pixar type too,but to me Disney just wont be the same if there arent any 2-D's in the near future.
shareThere is still hope for 2-D. Experienced animators form the disney crew have now erected a new studio especially for making 2D animated features in the way Disney used to.Have to look up againn what it's called but has something to do withy inherintance. Be back later with more info!
shareHere follows the newsflash which I read on awn.com about the newly erected animation company:
Disney Animators Form Legacy Animation In Florida
January 09, 2004
A group of former Walt Disney Feature Animation Florida animators have banded together to open Legacy Animation Studios, a new animation production studio in Winter Garden, Florida, close to Orlando in late January 2004. The studio will offer a full-range of traditional hand-drawn (or 2D) animation services for film, television and commercials. Legacy will also be dedicated to developing original properties for television and film as well as produce its own feature film project.
“We believe that traditionally animated films are still a viable form of entertainment,” says Legacy Animation Studios directing manager, Eddie Pittman. “Our goal is to create quality animated films with compelling stories and strong characters and to continue Walt Disney’s legacy of hand-drawn animation.”
The combined experience of the Legacy team amounts to more than 25 animated films, including THE LITTLE MERMAID, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, ALADDIN, MULAN and LILO AND STITCH.
Pittman has worked on such animated features as MULAN, TARZAN, and LILO & STITCH. He has taught for the renowned Computer Animation program at Ringling School of Art and Design, and his popular drawing classes taught around Central Florida the Disney Florida studio recommended to aspiring animators. Recently, he produced and directed LEGENDS OF THE NIGHT SKY: ORION, the world’s first full dome (360°) traditionally animated movie.
Veteran assistant animator David Nethery is on board as creative director for Legacy. Nethery has nearly 20 years of experience as an animation artist. His credits include such characters as "Meeko” the raccoon from POCAHONTAS, "Mushu” from MULAN, "Cobra Bubbles” from LILO AND STITCH, and, most recently, "Tug" and "Koda's Mom” from BROTHER BEAR.
Legacy has three projects in development, including a short film that will begin production in late January 2004. For more information contact Pittman at (407) 538-8938 or via e-mail at [email protected].
-----
If this company gains succes with their traditionally animated movies, maybe at Disney they will repent having abandoned this artform and return to 2-D once more.
No more 2-D? Not hardly.
Sure, "Chicken Little", is the first of the "in-house" computer animated movies, but it is =not= listed as a "canon" movie. And "canon" animated movies is how the Disney company sees themselves best.
"Rapunzel" is the current 45th animated "canon" movie (assuming they don't change this at the last minute), and it's not all computer animated (but it does have a lot of computer generated backgrounds and other computer effects). "Rapunzel" has some hand-drawn stuff in it.
The current 46th animated "canon" movie is "Fantasia Revisited" which I've already seen some pre-production hand-drawn art from ("The Little Match Girl").
The current plans for 2-D go clean thru 2010 at least. 2-D is =not= dead. Computer animation, however, will be a part of 2-D "cartoons" for a long time to come. Many animated films will use a blend of 2-D and computer animation for the foreseeable future. And there will be many more totally computer animated films.
I don't look for anyone to completely eliminate hand-drawing. Ever.
Unfortunately, it's hard to sell 2D animation to a generation of kids babysat by computer terminals and game consoles. They might be computer-savvy, but I shudder to think what it's doing to their literacy and attention spans.
I like "Nemo" and all that, but the elegance and artistry of hand-drawn animation is lost on the majority of children in this era.
Boy, I'm lucky I'm gonna be a computer animator. I hope Pixar's lookin'!!! ;)
share3-D animation is cool, but it's not for every story. Imagine seeing a story like Princess Mononoke or Fantasia in 3-D. It would look terrible, and wouldn't generate the same feeling. 3-D computer is a wonderful medium, but it's not for every story or plot. I hope hand drawn animation will never die out.
shareI think that it would be terrible to stop 2D animation, but i understand where Disney is coming from. For some reason, there has been a trend of "bad" animation recently. What ever happened to drawing things to look realistic? Movies like Lion King did everything they could to make the characters look as real as possible, but in this upcoming feature, they are deliberately drawn poorly. Why is that? I wish Disney would return to the real quality Musicals, like those as recent as Mulan and Hunchback of Notre Dame!
But that's just personal preference...
Hey, we need 2-D to create attractive characters. There is a FAIRLY ODDPARENTS movie in the works.
The decision to shut down 2-D animation was an enourmous blunder on the part of Michael Eisner. It is reported that the decision had been made, but when Brother Bear broke 100 mil, he began to have second thoughts. It was too late though, and that's when his lackey Stainton went down to WDFA-F and terminated production of "A Few Good Ghosts", eventually leading to the shutdown of the florida studio.
It's stupid, Eisner still doesn't get it. It's the story that matters, not the medium. The board believes that the reason Disney's movies (out o Burbank) are failing is because they are 2D, and cite Pixar's movies, 3D, as the example of what is successful these days.
They don't get it. The reason Pixar's movies work is because they have heart. They have memorable characters that the audience can grow to care about. They have plots with substance, an involving storyline. If Disney would just let their burbank animators and storywriters be creative, their 2D movies WOULD succeed.
All you have to do is point towards the now closed Florida studio. The animators down there were able to be bold and creative with their movies because the suits in burbank didn't keep the noose around their neck at all times. And what happened? Three blockbusters in a row: Mulan, Lilo and Stitch, and Brother Bear. The formula in Florida WORKED: Good working environment, high morale, team spirit, creativity, it was all encouraged. And that's how we got those great movies.
And they scattered that money-making team to the four winds. The florida studio could make blockbusters at only 2/3 the cost of Burbank, and they shut it down. This, if anything, should show you the abolute moronic way in which Eisner runs the company.
Just wait till their next high-budget CGI feature fails because they didn't give it a goods story. Maybe then management will learn its lesson.
I have a feeling that this shark movie dreamworks is coming out with wil be a flop, or so I hope.
shareI love 2D. I think Eisner had some valid commercial reasons to keep producing the stuff - mostly to do with public relations. But the films themselves, when made to a high standard, will not be commercially successful.
We may kid ourselves that this has nothing to do with the medium, but it has everything to do with the medium. 3D animated features can scarcely fail at the box office. 2D animated features can scarcely succeed. The relative box office takes of animated features over the past nine years (period in which 2D and 3D features began to compete with one another) may have something to do with quality of story and character and whatever lame excuses people are coming up with to explain away the fact that 3D features invariably do better at the box office - but not much. The single most important factor in determining the popularity of an animated feature these days, is whether or not it was made with 3D CGI. How else do you explain the fact that only two of Disney's eleven traditionally animated features of the digital era were more successful than Dinosaur - and even then, not by much?
There may one day be a CGI feature that fails because it has a poor story, but having a poor story did little to hurt the fortunes of Shrek, which I doubt could have made one-tenth as much money had it been traditionally animated. Having a good story and the name "Disney" behind was only just enough to make Brother Bear roughly as successful as Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius.
No. Traditional 2D is, alas, dead, and its being dead has to do with nothing other than the fact that the vast majority of people, idiots that they are, prefer CGI. But kid yourself if you want.
Spleen,
A year and a half has elapsed since you declared '2 D- animation'dead. And what do wo have in the pipeline now : a new 2D- movie by Disney "The Frog Princess" brought on by none onther than 'mister 3-D' John Lassetter, because he loves 2-D animation. You wrote "3D-animaiton can scarcely fail at the box office", but what than about "The Wild" and "Final Fantasy"?
Even idiots at a certain point get bored with the same type of 3-d animated movies about funny situations with furry animals. And it seems that nearly all studios ar merely copying each other's stories. Someday a point of satisfaction will be reached and moviegoers will yearn for something different. I think that day will soon come.
I just wouldn't declare 2-d dead yet.
And yes, let's have it for the 'epic'kind of Disney 2-d animation; these movies are still selling well on DVD, and not merely for 'nostalgic' reasons.
The demand for CGI animation was, at the time I wrote, vastly greater than that for traditional 2D. And it still is. Of course, however great the demand for something, it's possible to flood the market, and that's what's happening now - but the fact that it's possible to flood the market as much as this, and for CGI films to still make more money individually than 2D films were capable of making two years ago (when that market was scarcely being exploited at all), proves I was correct.
Trends change and who knows what the future will bring. Maybe 2D will become popular again. Maybe so will black and white photography. But so far, alas, I've been proven right.
Also note that The Wild made $US 37 million; Final Fantasy made $32 million (the same amount, allowing for inflation). These figures are indeed exceptionally low. However, they're not exceptionally low for 2D features, which are capable of earning much less.
By the way, were I to refine my thesis, I would make an exception for Final Fantasy (and The Polar Express, etc.). What I'm claiming is that it's the look of CGI that makes it successful, and that the public - stupidly but surely - much prefers a certain Pixar-like look to the traditional 2D Disney look. It's possible for a CGI feature to have a look the public dislikes, and that's what Final Fantasy had. (It's perhaps the 3D equivalent of Ralph-Bakshi-style animation, which is also not popular.)
One thing John Lasseter will discover when he releases his 2D feature is how little he owes his success to what he thinks he owes it to (story strengths, etc.), and how much he owes it to what he's claiming is irrelevant (CGI sheen).
Well, Spleen, just see how it will work out with 'The Frog Princess'. Maybe the 'idiots' can be compelled to go and watch it with the proper marketing and promotion.
Do not forget that there are still other forms of animation besides CGI and traditionally hand-drawn: stop-motion for instance. Did "Corpse Bride" do well at the box office?
If you are right, however, there is no other option for 2D-lovers than to pop a Disney classic in their DVD-player again :(
Still, I would not compare traditonal animation to 'black-and white photography' (old-fashioned?) because the tecnique of producing those films has been innovated greatly over the years - certainly in the nineties! (and with the aid of CGI, isn't that funny?) Who knows it will turn out that so much becomes possible with 2D (special effects etc.) that CGI looks old fashioned and wooden in comparison! Than the audience once more will embrace 2-D as it looks so much 'cooler' and 'modern' than "traditional CGI".
Anyway , I don't really see more dimension in the so-called '3-D' features than in '2-D'.
[deleted]
Why should Pixar make traditionally animated movies? They pioneered computer animation. Why wouldn't they not continue to use it? Thats like asking Einstien to teach English instead of Math. Oh and you guys are wrong about this because Brad Bird who directed "Ratitoule" for Pixar made "The Iron Giant" a traditional animated movie.
HOHOHO! What do you have to say NOW, SPLEEN?! What do you have to say now?! I think it was YOU who kidded yourself, my FRIEND! HOHOHO! HAHAHA! CAN'T LOOK VERY FAR INTO THE FUTURE CAN YOU, SPLEEN?! HOHOHO! You were wrong! WRONG! Hohoho. HOHOHO. HYAHHOHOHOHOHYAHHOHAHOHYAAAAH!
Everyone is but a homo side character in my romantic comedy!share
Sorry - what exactly has happened to prove me wrong?
I would be delighted not to have seen as far into the future as I thought I had - I would be delighted to find the pendulum has swung back and that the public is indicating a preference for the look of 2D. But it hasn't happened yet - has it? What have I missed?
Over the years it's only become more obvious I was right in my main point: that the greater success of 3D features compared to 2D was entirely due to the fact that they were 3D.
HAHA Spleen! Don't try to skirt what you said in order to remain in the right!
You said 2-D animation was DEAD! DEAD, my friend! That is the statement I am referring to and that is what you said! And you were WRONG! WRONG, SPLEEN! It is STILL BREATHING! BREATHING AND BEING RELEASED U.S WIDE IN THEATERS DEC. 11! HYAHAHAHA! It's not dead YET!
Everyone is but a homo side character in my romantic comedy!share
Oh, is that it.
You're right, 2D animation was never dead in the sense that production of it had ceased entirely, so doubtless "dead" was the wrong word to use. But I made this clear in the first reply I wrote to some misguided individual - nearly three years ago now! I knew about the upcoming release of the Frog Princess movie back then and I referred to it.
2D animation is only "dead" (again, wrong word to use; I apologise for the confusion I evidently caused you) in the sense that black and white cinematography is. It's still used occasionally but it's no longer a mainstream standard and for the forseeable future won't be again. This is not a good thing; I wish it weren't the case - but it is.
Hohoho... Do not give up hope, Spleen! 2D CAN shine again!
lol I'm just glad it's not dead.
Everyone is but a homo side character in my romantic comedy!share
Early in 2013, Disney layed off a few hand-drawn animators.
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/breaking-disney-just-gutted-their-ha nd-drawn-animation-division-81043.html
In addition, the newest Disney film, Frozen, is booming with more than $700,000,000.
But what one may not know is that Frozen was once going to be a hand-drawn film that shifted into CG after Tangled out-grossed The Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh combined.
http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/and-sometimes-just-irri tates-me.html
I have my doubts Disney will switch back to hand-drawn in this decade if their CG films are much more profitable.
Way back when, 2D animation could do things that computers cannot possibly replicate. As long as the 2D animation is computer-made, it hardly matters whether they use a 2D style or a 3D style.
share