The Future of 2-D and CGI Animation, plus new projects confirmed

lrodk

<font color=009900>No one is immune to the TF's in
Joined
Aug 17, 1999
The NY Times has a very interesting article today on upcoming Disney films, as well as confirmed projects that have been rumored(ie My Peoples). Some very interesting quotes as well from Jeffrey Katzenberg(Dreamworks) and Thomas Schumacher( president of Disney's animation division) on the future of 2-D(traditional animation) and CGI(Computer Generated Animation-ala Toy Story,Shrek, etc) and how they might be used together. I've copied and pasted the article since access to it is subscription based.


This summer could decide the future of the beloved form that gave movie fans "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs," "Pinocchio" and "Beauty and the Beast." Two animated features, "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron" and "Lilo and Stitch," will be offering traditional-looking hand-drawn imagery to an audience that has fallen in love with the simulated 3-D effects of computer-generated cartoons.

Although both new films make use of computer technology, they are essentially 2-D animations: that is, flat drawings come to life. Their unique magic resides in the discernible hand of the artist, who, like an offstage conjurer, offers human warmth, emotional intimacy and subtle characterizations that cannot yet be completely achieved on computers.

But lately, animators who use pixels have been outpacing those who use pencils. The computer, or C.G., animations "Shrek," "Monsters, Inc.," "Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius," and "Ice Age" — all of which followed in the wake of "Toy Story" — were critical and commercial successes, while recent traditionally drawn features — "Atlantis: The Lost Empire," "The Road to El Dorado," "The Emperor's New Groove," "Recess: The Movie" and "Osmosis Jones" (where the animation was combined with live action) — were duds.

Arguably, the 3-D films had more engaging stories and characters than their 2-D counterparts, and were better marketed. But with all three nominees in the Oscars' new animated feature category coming out of C.G. workshops, the writing may be on the wall for traditional animators. They are joined by studio executives, financiers, critics, academics and fans in wondering whether 2-D toons are now obsolete.

Enter DreamWorks with "Spirit" and Disney with "Lilo," both hedging their bets by melding hand drawing with C.G. "I think 2-D films as defined in the past are a thing of the past," said the DreamWorks co-founder Jeffrey Katzenberg, who produced "Spirit" and who is credited with reviving animated features while he was at Disney. "Today's audiences demand a richer, more immersive, lifelike, detailed world, and the only way you can create that is by computer." He describes 2-D as "an organic process" and 3-D as "an engineering process"; watching 2-D, he says, is like receiving a handwritten letter as opposed to an e-mail. "Traditional animation as it existed in the 20th century is being reinvented," Mr. Katzenberg said.

"Spirit," opening May 24, tells the story of the title character, a mustang, as he gallops through the American frontier of the late 1800's. Echoes of "Bambi" reverberate in the subtle, hand-drawn anthropomorphism of the narrative as it tracks a wild animal's birth, his relationship with nature, his encounters with humans and a climactic fire.

Walt Disney's multiplane camera gave the drawings in "Bambi" an illusion of depth. Computers do the same for "Spirit," with seamless transitions between the traditional animation and the C.G. imagery. The opening sequence, in which the camera follows a bald eagle swooping through forests and canyons in one continuous flight, combined thousands of pieces of 2-D and 3-D artwork, 700 painted background elements, and 30 layers of digitally composited images on each film frame. The naturalistic draftsmanship and animation (supervised by James Baxter) merge with the computer effects to make the characters and their story believable.

"Lilo and Stitch," opening June 21, achieves believability while celebrating the cartoon as cartoon. An action-filled comedy with requisite heartstring tugs in the best "Dumbo" tradition, "Lilo" has the most original story to come from Disney in years. Lilo is a lonely 6-year-old Hawaiian girl who adopts what she thinks is a small, ugly dog, Stitch. But he is actually an alien experiment from another planet. The score includes six Elvis Presley hits (sung by the King himself) commenting on the plot and fully developed personalities, which were hand-animated, principally by Andreas Deja and Alex Kupershmidt.

The stylized character designs match hand-painted watercolor backgrounds, offering a lush illustrative look reminiscent of mid-1930's Mickey Mouse shorts, a toon world that preceded the slavish "realism" of the features. But computers colored the animation drawings in "Lilo and Stitch," digitally aligned them with backgrounds and animated the film's metallic spacecraft. But, said Chris Sanders, the movie's co-director and designer, "Instead of placing our emphasis on technical marvels and pushing new boundaries, we wanted to slow the world down a bit and focus on character development and relationships."

Solid drawing skills will always be important in making animated productions. On television, hand-drawn cartoons rule, and some — "Rugrats" and "Beavis and Butt-head," for example — have made successful transitions to the big screen. But the way of the future is crossbreeding 2-D with 3-D.

The "Spirit" team coined a clumsy word — tradigital — to describe a smoothly integrated process. " `Spirit' is not a 2-D movie but the most technologically complex animated feature to date," Mr. Katzenberg said. "Hand drawing is one aspect of the film." He predicted that such hybrids would someday be the norm.

So all DreamWorks animators have been trained in both C.G. and traditional techniques. And at the Walt Disney studio, there is similar rethinking and retooling. In March, 250 jobs were cut in the Burbank feature animation unit — mostly traditional animators and the assistants called cleanup artists. Remaining staff members have been offered retraining on computers, and angry former employees believe C.G. is taking over the studio where 2-D animation became an art form.

Thomas Schumacher, the president of Disney's animation division, said that the firings were part of a general belt-tightening at the studio: "Over the years I have carried people with absolutely nothing to do," he said. But he conceded that Disney was restructuring the way its animated features are made. "There are functions that can be replaced or enhanced by technology," he said. "But you can't make a movie without being able to draw."

Mr. Schumacher contended that C.G. "is not defined at all," and cited examples of the multiple ways computer animators can "create looks." One is Deep Canvas, a technique created by Disney and first tried in "Tarzan." It made "paintings feel alive," he said. Another is "motion capture" technology, which uses live action as a base image, as in last year's Richard Linklater film "Waking Life." And there is "paperless" animation, using an electronic cursor as a "pencil."

The real future of 2-D at Disney may be glimpsed this fall in "Treasure Planet," an outer-space riff on Robert Louis Stevenson's pirate tale "Treasure Island." Long John Silver is "co-animated" by the traditional artist Glen Keane (animator of the Beast in "Beauty and the Beast" and Tarzan) and the C.G. animator Eric Daniels, who animated one of Silver's eyes, an arm and his peg leg. Also in the pipeline is "My Peoples," described by Mr. Schumacher as a "bluegrass musical of 2-D characters in a 2-D world that you watch transform and become 3-D."

Disney's distribution contract with Pixar, the supersuccessful computer studio responsible for "Toy Story," "A Bug's Life" and "Monsters, Inc.," runs out after three more films. "With or without Pixar," Mr. Schumacher said, "I'm making movies that are C.G." One 3-D film currently in production is "Chicken Little," which is being drawn by C.G. artists and retrained traditional animators.

What would the company's founder make of all this?

"Walt Disney was one of the great futurists of our time," Mr. Schumacher said. "It is hard for me to believe that the man who kept reinventing animation wouldn't embrace this form of storytelling."

Indeed, technological advances helped build the Disney empire, from sound to Technicolor to multiplane camera to television. Besides, Walt Disney's relationships with workers were often strained, and he was known to suggest only half-jokingly that he'd gladly replace his slow and expensive traditional animators with animatronic robots. No doubt: Walt would embrace C.G.I.
 
The coming attractions of Spirit werent too impressive and with the array of summer movies being released i would be surprised if it did that good at the box office, unless it was done cheaply to cut back on costs!!! With all the big summer movies their will be alot of competition out their and even young kids will perfer s Star Wars/Spiderman/MIB too a animated movie unless it is something that is ground breaking.
 
My daughter is peeing her pants to see Spirit, she is horse crazy. Don't for get girls are horse fanatics and it also is a G movie where all the mentioned were PG. So there is a audience left out on PG. Enough to make it a block buster, probably not, but at least it is something.

Personally I am glad there are some G movies coming out I am tired of trying to explain why we can ;'t see the latest hyped movie. The G audience gets over looked a lot.

J
 
Story is the main driver for success of any feature, whether it be 2D, 3D or live action.

Titan AE had a lot of CG in it and it did not do well. Jimmy Neutron was a financial success because the cost to make that fil m was comparably low.

I predict that Lilo and Stitch will do well. I personally am looking forward to Spirit. It had a nationwide sneek preview, so it will be interesting to find out how well the reviews were by a general audience.

I think part of the problem is the cost of paying feature animation artists. After The Lion King, the salaries sky rocketed adding a lot of cost to making the features. That came right off the bottom line.

A pull back in salaries and numbers may bring sensibilities back to a more tenable position at WDFA..
 
Disney thought it had the future of animation all pegged out – cost engineered sequels, Saturday morning franchises, plush until you can’t plush no more.

Then this Elephant movie made more money by dinner on Saturday than the return-on-investment perfect ‘Peter Pan 2’ made in ten weeks.

Opps……

Disney, which is shutting down its animation unit, suddenly found out that animation is “hot”. Once again, the management has been caught completely flat-footed and is now scrambling to come up with yet one more plan to save the day.

At this point all you’ll see is the basic Corporate Spin in an attempt to avoid further embarrassment. With The Secret Lab destroyed over a year ago and Pixar already putting non-Disney movies in development, Disney is scrambling to build some sort of presence in the “hot” CGI market. Hollywood is laughing at them.

They are awaiting the returns on ‘Spirit’ and ‘Lilo’ to determine the future of traditional animation. Instead of leading the industry, they are playing catch-up.
 
You know while I love the Pixar Toy Story films if I had to pick only 4-5 animated films to watch for the rest of my life they would be in order of preference:
1. Sleeping Beauty
2. Beauty and the Beast
3. Mulan
4. Emperors New Groove
5. Cinderella

All but 2 are 2-D with computer effects (Sleeping B and Cindy being the only all 2-D)
Until CG can make people look like more than just fancy claymation and they actually move with a grace and smoothness you find in 2-D animation I will never accept CGI animation as the alternative to Traditional hand drawn films.
Sorry I just don't feel it has the beauty of the hand drawn work and while I know it takes great skill, I don't think it compares to the animators who can draw hundreds of pictures in a row to make a few seconds of film. I find that simply astounding and I wish they didn't rely on our computers so much.
Maybe if Disney wouldn't watse so much money on terrible sequals and do more original stuff or even use more of the hundreds of tales still not done I think they would be doing better!

:bounce:
 
I would agree with TLK that all thing being equal that the story will determine what movie does best. But if the story is of equal quailty the new generation will perfer the new technology over hand drawn movies. As much as someone might like the 5 below movies. if released new and at the same time as Shrek/Toy Story/Monsters their is no doubt in my mind what movies the modern generation would see more often. Disney has to adapt to the times or they will be furthur behind than they already are.
 
Originally posted by Cybele

All but 2 are 2-D with computer effects (Sleeping B and Cindy being the only all 2-D)
Until CG can make people look like more than just fancy claymation and they actually move with a grace and smoothness you find in 2-D animation I will never accept CGI animation as the alternative to Traditional hand drawn films.

Some people say that Final Fantasy came pretty darn close.
 
Bob O wrote:
"As much as someone might like the 5 below movies. if released new and at the same time as Shrek/Toy Story/Monsters their is no doubt in my mind what movies the modern generation would see more often. Disney has to adapt to the times or they will be furthur behind than they already are."

While ENG didn't do as well as the others both B&B and Mulan did excellently and are not old enough to hold that argument. Especially with the new relelase of B&B in IMAX that did pretty well. B&B also has the distinction of being the ONLY animated film to be nominated with live action films for an Academy Award, that will never happen again!
As for SB and Cindy if they were done with the same beauty and grace of B&B and Mulan I think they would do very well indeed, you cannot prove either way how they would have performed anyway. And as they currently rank among the classics as well as two of Disney most popular films.,I think that speaks for itself don't you?
Especially since SB is one of the most requested DVD's of Disneys classics.


As for Final Fantay I saw scenes but never saw the entire film as it looked too much like some pumped up video game and it didn't in "MY" opinion look at all as good as Mulan or B&B because they were too busy trying to be the latest thing in CGI and they over did it from what friends have told me.
I'm not saying I don't like CGI, the Toy Story films are fabulous and I did enjoy many of the other CGI films I'm just saying I prefer the beauty of hand drawn because I feel it is still superior in some ways to CGI.
Like isaid that is "MY" opinion and you are all free to think whatever you like!
:D
Cheers
 
I have a boy here who is real eager to see Stallion (along with Star Wars of course) not to mention an excited Mom who has a little bit of the horse-crazy spirit left in her. :D

I think that Ice Age shows that people like a good animated movie and even with the blockbusters coming out, I believe that Stallion and Lilo & Stitch have the potential to do well. There is a bit of a gap between Star Wars and MIB that Spirit can fit into and Lilo & Stitch should be coming out late enough not to be too affected. Of course, all of this may be wishful thinking. :)
 
Mulan's numbers pale in comparison to those of Shrek/Toy Story/Monsters Inc. And IMHO Mulan was a very weak movie which carried over to the box office. Maybe disney could learn something from Pixar as their movies have been alot more successful than disney's latest animated releases!
 
Bugs Life was a weak film, don't get me wrong Pixar is absoutly fantastic but BL was soo slow and uninteresting and Monster's Inc was cute but of the 4 Pixar films I think Toy Story and TS2 have been by far the best of their full length films.

Besides, I think if they had done these films as hand drawn you would have seen Toy Story and Monsters probably do just as well while Shrek and Bug's life probably wouldn't have done so well.

CGI is doing so well because it is new, so a lot of folks will go see it to see the CGI not just because of the story. Just give it a few years and CGI's novelty will wear off and I think you will see their movies fail just as much as Hand Drawn when the story is weak.

And Shrek, while funny, was just one big Disney bashing fest, just so Katzenberg could get back at Eisner who did deserve some dissing, but....

If the Shrek sequel is not so much Disney bashing then I will give it more credit but while the CGI was good I felt the story was not the best.

I'm not sure if Mulan's numbers were as weak as you claim, show me the numbers then allow for cost increases and then lets see.

I think the most important thing for all these movies, Hand drawn or CGI is for the story to work. And Disney has had some really bad stories lately without the advantage of the CGI novelty to bring people in just to see the effects. That's what happened with Final Fantasy, great CGI supposedly but terrible story.
Cheers~:Pinkbounc
 
Most of this is personal opinion anyway, but if numbers are the only guide then look at the top 20 of the top 100 films of all time and tell me that they deserve to be there.

Top grossing films (unadjusted for inflation)

1. Titanic
2. Star Wars
3. Star Wars episode 3
4. E.T.
5. Jurassic Park
6. Forest Gump
7. Harry Potter
8. Lion King
9. Star Wars VI
10. Independence Day
11. Lord of the Rings
12. Sixth Sense
13. Star Wars V
14. Home Alone
15. Shrek
16. The Grinch
17. Jaws
18. Monsters, Inc.
19. Batman
20. MIB

Are these really the top fims of all time? Does anyone think any more than possibly a few of these are in the top 20 of all time (I count three)? I think this shows that box office is not the way to discuss quality...I suspect even Voice might agree with me on this one...

Next, if Lilo & Stitch is successful then what will Disney be? Lucky, back on top, or still in the game?

Oh yeah, one more thing. This giving credit to Pixar and not Disney for the Disney-Pixar relationship is pointless. Disney forged this deal and is reaping the benefits and Pixar has gained immeseasurably from this relationship as well. Give Eisner credit when due, the Pixar deal has been a good one resulting in some classic Disney pictures!
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:
 
The Disney/Pixar deal was never the issue, but I understand your point.
However Lassiter had the Toy Story idea before the Disney deal. In a lot of ways Disney has just been part of the wallet for the Pixar films while the majority of the film work has been done by Pixar. Disney was approched by Lassiter, if I remember correctly, to join with them in making full length CGI films not the other way around.
That is not to say Disney doesn't deserve credit but in reality if there had been no Pixar there would never have been a Toy Story at all.

As for the top 20 many of those films are my favorites so it looks good to me. But as you so accuratley put it, it is all personal opinion and there are many films not on that list that I love as well!
Cheers!:wave:
 
Originally posted by Peter Pirate
Most of this is personal opinion anyway, but if numbers are the only guide then look at the top 20 of the top 100 films of all time and tell me that they deserve to be there.

Top grossing films (unadjusted for inflation)

1. Titanic
2. Star Wars
3. Star Wars episode 3
4. E.T.
5. Jurassic Park
6. Forest Gump
7. Harry Potter
8. Lion King
9. Star Wars VI
10. Independence Day
11. Lord of the Rings
12. Sixth Sense
13. Star Wars V
14. Home Alone
15. Shrek
16. The Grinch
17. Jaws
18. Monsters, Inc.
19. Batman
20. MIB

Are these really the top fims of all time? Does anyone think any more than possibly a few of these are in the top 20 of all time (I count three)? I think this shows that box office is not the way to discuss quality...I suspect even Voice might agree with me on this one...

The "unadjusted for inflation"is the biggest problme with that list. If some company would do research and adjust the number....I have a feeling that you would agree with alot more of the Titles. I personally see about 5 that are in the list and would stay in the list; and I think they belong in the list.
 
Originally posted by Peter Pirate

3. Star Wars episode 3


BTW...nice foreshadowing...this movie has not been made yet. I think its supposed to be Episode 1
 
But what came first the egg or the chicken? Certainly Disney is making a bundle from the Pixar made films but could Pixar have gone it alone without the Disney machine? That's the question.

As to the films, Europa hit the crux of it. Certainly raw figures cannot be used in determining the greates pictures of all time. But...The adjusted for inflation figures do bear out much better. Take a look.

1. gone With the Wind
2. Star Wars
3. Sound of Music
4. ET
5. 10 Commandmants
6. Jaws
7. Titanic
8. Dr. Zhivago
9. The Jungle book
10. Snow White
11. Ben Hur
12. 101 Dalmations
13. The Excorcist
14. The Empire Strikes Back
15. Return of the Jedi
16. The Sting
17. Raiders of the Lost Ark
18. Jurassic Park
19. The Graduate
20. Star Wars -1

IMO, only a few glare as unrealistic...Titanic, The Jungle Book, Dalmations, and at least a couple of the Star Wars flicks...

Anyway, how any of this relates to animation techniques is beyond me so I apologize for straying, but I just can't see big box office numbers (like those of Drek) being meaningful without some sort of massaging...

As to the CGI vs Hand drawn, I agree with an earlier poster that said CGI while cool & innovative haven't reached the level where the characters touch you yet...I agree with the claymation analogy with the CGI product...I just don't feel the warmth. But in agreement with another poster Walt WOULD have dove in head first and the future of animation certainly is CGI, IMO...

:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:
 
Couple of notes... I believe the ET re-release has pushed it past Episode One. Worldwide, Monsters is 20th all-time, making it the second all-time animated film behind LK.

Other animated films that made over $100 million:

32. Aladdin
44. Toy Story
46. Snow White
69. Tarzan ($171 million)
70. Ice Age (will pass Tarzan this week)
71. Beauty and the Beast
81. Bug's Life
88. Roger Rabbit
94. 101 Dalmatians
105. Jungle Book
107. Pocahontas
119. Dinosaur (An impressive 61st Worldwide)
160. Mulan ($120 million)
189. The Little Mermaid
245. Hunchback


Top 20 ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION (Domestic)

1. Gone with the Wind
2. Star Wars
3. Sound of Music
4. ET
5. The Ten Commandments
6. Jaws
7. Titanic
8. Dr. Zhivago
9. Jungle Book
10. Snow White
11. Ben-Hur
12. 101 Dalmatians
13. Exorcist
14. Empire Strikes Back
15. Return of the Jedi
16. The Sting
17. Raiders of the Lost Ark
18. Jurassic Park
19. The Graduate
20. SW Epsisode One

Other animated films on the domestic adjusted list:
21. Fantasia
24. Mary Poppins
26. Lion King
29. Sleeping Beauty
32. Bambi
59. Lady and the Tramp
73. Aladdin
83. Toy Story 2
85. Shrek
90. Peter Pan
94. Monsters Inc.
97. Toy Story
 
Shrek made alot of money because people enjoyed the film and saw it numerous times, now some disney fanatics may not have enjoyed some humor but the people spoke with their wallets and disney would love to see Lilo and Stitch make anywhere near the money that Shrek did.
Peter Pirate as much as you want to make Bugs Life/Toy Story and Monsters Inc disney movies its impossible!!! The movies were produced by Pixar with no creative input from Disney in the least. They arent disney movies and no spin can change that fact, nor the fact that disney's latest releases havent made anywhere near the money that the PIXAR movies have made. Disney needs to learn from Pixar and tried to buy off Lasseter but failed as they know he right now is more creative than they are or than they are allowing their own animators to be!! We have classic Pixar movies but not calssic disney movies!!!
 
I'm sorry but what do you mean we have classic Pixar but no Classic Disney...umm wrong!
Just becasue CGI is the new thing doesn't mean you can sweep over 70 years of hand drawn animation under the rug!

Just look at Japanese animation, some of that is the most incredible stuff I have ever seen!
Princess Moanoke, while a little bloody was just breathtaking, as is Nausicaa, Macross and Gundam. Not to mention all the Clamp anime.

Geez guy! Does that mean you think all classic cars are worthless because of all the new cars out there, or that movies in Black and White are not as good as color?

If that isn't what you meant, please explain, if it is then I think you should try and watch some of the older films because some of them are so much better than much of the dregs out there today!!

Cheers!:jester:
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!











facebook twitter
Top