Eisner says "2D animation is dead...", whittles down the traditional arm of animation
08-15-03, 11:29 AM
#1
Moderator
Thread Starter
Eisner says "2D animation is dead...", whittles down the traditional arm of animation
David Koenig's article on "Suspended Animation" (08-14-03):
This sucks... but I agree with David, the story is everything! 
Unfortunately, the latest installment of Survivor doesn't take place at some remote tropical island. It takes place a lot closer to home… in beautiful downtown Burbank, under a giant Sorcerer's hat, at the Walt Disney Feature Animation building, where last week another group of stressed-out castaways were voted off the show.
Forget the official Disney line that Feature Animation boasts a staff of 1,000 to 1,500 artists. In Burbank, there are only about 60 traditional “2-D” animators left who actually pick up a pencil or a paintbrush, counting Layout, Animators, Clean-up and Background artists… and Disney has no 2-D projects currently in production for them to work on. (Disney has a like number of survivors holding on in Florida, where a half 2-D/half-CG (computer graphics) project tentatively called My Peoples is underway.)
The vast majority of Feature Animation's artists have been reassigned to a computer or shown the door. It all points to Disney's next two animated features (this fall's Brother Bear and next spring's Home on the Range) being their last.
The latest cutback came two weeks ago, after 13 traditional animators submitted five scenes they had done on computer to vie for six “3-D” spots left to cast on Chicken Little. “The real controversy of this,” noted an onlooker, “is that they were pitted against one another and the playing field wasn't fair. Those who just finished the training program called 'Boot Camp' were up against those who finished Boot Camp six months ago and had more time to finesse, complete and present a more finished test. Also, they purposely entered more people into the training program, anticipating that the majority would fail at learning the computer. Well, they were terribly wrong! They all did great. Now they're worried because they don't know what to do with them because they already hired animators from The Secret Lab (Kangaroo Jack, the dragons on Reign of Fire). They hired them on the superficial qualities that they could do a lot of footage. Forget the fact that they can't do a lot of character footage!”... (continued)
Forget the official Disney line that Feature Animation boasts a staff of 1,000 to 1,500 artists. In Burbank, there are only about 60 traditional “2-D” animators left who actually pick up a pencil or a paintbrush, counting Layout, Animators, Clean-up and Background artists… and Disney has no 2-D projects currently in production for them to work on. (Disney has a like number of survivors holding on in Florida, where a half 2-D/half-CG (computer graphics) project tentatively called My Peoples is underway.)
The vast majority of Feature Animation's artists have been reassigned to a computer or shown the door. It all points to Disney's next two animated features (this fall's Brother Bear and next spring's Home on the Range) being their last.
The latest cutback came two weeks ago, after 13 traditional animators submitted five scenes they had done on computer to vie for six “3-D” spots left to cast on Chicken Little. “The real controversy of this,” noted an onlooker, “is that they were pitted against one another and the playing field wasn't fair. Those who just finished the training program called 'Boot Camp' were up against those who finished Boot Camp six months ago and had more time to finesse, complete and present a more finished test. Also, they purposely entered more people into the training program, anticipating that the majority would fail at learning the computer. Well, they were terribly wrong! They all did great. Now they're worried because they don't know what to do with them because they already hired animators from The Secret Lab (Kangaroo Jack, the dragons on Reign of Fire). They hired them on the superficial qualities that they could do a lot of footage. Forget the fact that they can't do a lot of character footage!”... (continued)
08-15-03, 11:52 AM
#3
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
wow sucks indeed. Well Nicktoons studio is near by in burbank aswell.. I'm sure they will end up there building up Nick's animation department. either way.. sucks sucks sucks. Didn't Eisner just say that it's about story telling and not the effects/animation type used in it? I would rather have a 2D film that is good then a 3d film that is bad.
08-15-03, 01:11 PM
#5
Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fleischer studios used rotoscoping or painting over film to generate the lifelike movements of Gulliver. Amazing how motion capture is full circle to an older technique.
Disney built their reputatution on not looking lifelike, but being childlike and fantastic. Fleischer studios did the great Superman shorts, popeye and Gulliver. But never could attain the marketshare of Disney.
Disney built their reputatution on not looking lifelike, but being childlike and fantastic. Fleischer studios did the great Superman shorts, popeye and Gulliver. But never could attain the marketshare of Disney.
08-15-03, 02:25 PM
#6
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Fascination Street
Posts: 6,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And this s--t right after Eisner gives an interview where he says it's CONTENT that's important, not the animation method. 
Got news for you Disney--your animated features aren't going to be any less lame rendered on CG workstations.
Got news for you Disney--your animated features aren't going to be any less lame rendered on CG workstations.
08-15-03, 04:30 PM
#7
Banned by request
Here's what I don't understand.
Other than the Pixar films, which are all done out of house anyway, the biggest hit Disney has had as of late was Lilo and Stitch, which was a conscious move back toward more traditional 2-D animation, right down to the watercolor backgrounds. So what's the deal??
Other than the Pixar films, which are all done out of house anyway, the biggest hit Disney has had as of late was Lilo and Stitch, which was a conscious move back toward more traditional 2-D animation, right down to the watercolor backgrounds. So what's the deal??
08-15-03, 04:55 PM
#8
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,851
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Suprmallet
Here's what I don't understand.
Other than the Pixar films, which are all done out of house anyway, the biggest hit Disney has had as of late was Lilo and Stitch, which was a conscious move back toward more traditional 2-D animation, right down to the watercolor backgrounds. So what's the deal??
Here's what I don't understand.
Other than the Pixar films, which are all done out of house anyway, the biggest hit Disney has had as of late was Lilo and Stitch, which was a conscious move back toward more traditional 2-D animation, right down to the watercolor backgrounds. So what's the deal??
They probably realize that Brother Bear and Home on the Range are going to be real stinkers. My guess is that they want to put the blame on the idea that the public won't watch anything but CG when those movies tank. Kind of like Paramount blaming the failure of Tomb Raider 2 on Eidos for not making a better video game.
08-15-03, 05:07 PM
#9
DVD Talk Legend
Other than the Pixar films, which are all done out of house anyway, the biggest hit Disney has had as of late was Lilo and Stitch, which was a conscious move back toward more traditional 2-D animation, right down to the watercolor backgrounds. So what's the deal??
2. Treasure Planet
3. Spirit
4. Atlantis
Their combined grosses can't even measure up to 2/3rds of what Finding Nemo has grossed so far. The same combined grosses can't even touch Monsters Inc, Shrek, Toy Story2, and only slightly beat the original Toy Story and Ice Age. Even if Lilo was a hit, it seems that both Eisner and Katzenberg view it as an exception rather than the rule, and feel that 2D animation is dead in the water.
Which, as we all know, as STOOO-PUDD. But they got shareholders (or, in Dreamwors case, financiers) to answer to.
Hopefully Don Bluth is successful with his new studio..
08-15-03, 05:25 PM
#10
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
1. Sinbad = Mixed both traditional animation with CGI
2. Treasure Planet = Another mix between the two
3. Spirit = Awful marketing
4. Atlantis = It was pushed as an adult friendly film.
Now a quote
in the titles you mentioned there was major signs of bad story telling. Treasure planet suffered the same fate TITAN AE did
it's all about story telling. if Don Bluth can get a good story out. I welcome more.
2. Treasure Planet = Another mix between the two
3. Spirit = Awful marketing
4. Atlantis = It was pushed as an adult friendly film.
Now a quote
1) TIME --- Finding Nemo was a Summer smash; Sinbad, a major flop. Is traditional cel animation dead?
Michael Eisner --- What's dead is bad storytelling. Technology doesn't make the movie; the story makes the movie. We've obviously done very well with computer animation and Pixar.
Michael Eisner --- What's dead is bad storytelling. Technology doesn't make the movie; the story makes the movie. We've obviously done very well with computer animation and Pixar.
it's all about story telling. if Don Bluth can get a good story out. I welcome more.
08-15-03, 08:07 PM
#11
Moderator
Thread Starter
Got bored here's a breakdown of the major releases in the last 5 years or so (with a few exceptions):
All numbers are the Domestic Grosses of the film.
Red = 3D | Blue = 2D | Green = 2D/3D Mixed | Orange = Live Action/Animation Mixed
Space Jam (Warner Bros; November 1996) = $90,418,342
Iron Giant (Warner Bros; August 1999) = $23,159,305
Osmosis Jones (Warner Bros; August 2001) = $13,596,911
Anastasia (Fox; November 1997) = 58,406,347
Titan AE (Fox; June 2000) = $22,753,426
Ice Age (Fox; March 2002) = $176,387,405
Antz (Dreamworks; October 1998) = $90,689,703
Prince of Egypt (Dreaworks; December 1998) = $101,413,188
Chicken Run (Dreamworks; June 2000) = $106,834,564
Shrek (Dreamworks; May 2001) = $267,665,011
Spirit: Stallion of the Cimmaron (Dreamworks; May 2002) = $73,280,117
Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas (Dreamworks; July 2003) = $25,893,506*
Tarzan (Disney; June 1999) = $171,091,819
Dinosaur (Disney; May 2000) = $137,748,063
Atlantis (Disney; June 2001) = $84,056,472
Lilo & Stitch (Disney; June 2002) = $145,794,338
Spirited Away (Disney; September 2002) = $9,958,691
Treasure Planet (Disney; November 2002) = $38,176,783
Toy Story (Disney/Pixar; November 1995) = $191,796,233
A Bug's Life (Disney/Pixar; November 1998) = $162,798,565
Toy Story 2 (Disney/Pixar; November 1999) = $245,852,179
Monsters Inc (Disney/Pixar; November 2001) = $255,873,250
Finding Nemo (Disney/Pixar; June 2003) = $326,407,865*
The Rugrats Movie (Paramount; November 1998) = $100,494,675
Rugrats in Paris (Paramount; November 2000) = $76,507,756
Jimmy Nuetron: Boy Genius (Paramount; December 2001) = $80,936,232
The Wild Thornberrys (Paramount; December 2002) =$39,882,925
Rugrats Go Wild (Paramount; June 2003) = $38,597,402*
And Just for the heck of it:
Pokemon: The First Movie (Warner Bros; November 1999) = $85,744,662
Pokemon 2000 (Warner Bros; July 2000) = $43,758,684
Pokemon 3 (Warner Bros; April 2001) = $17,052,128
Pokemon 4ever (Dimension; October 2002) = $1,727,447
Pokemon Heroes (Miramax; May 2003) = $746,381*
Final Fantasy: The Spirit Within (Sony; July 2001) = $32,131,830
* Estimates
All numbers are the Domestic Grosses of the film.
Red = 3D | Blue = 2D | Green = 2D/3D Mixed | Orange = Live Action/Animation Mixed
Space Jam (Warner Bros; November 1996) = $90,418,342
Iron Giant (Warner Bros; August 1999) = $23,159,305
Osmosis Jones (Warner Bros; August 2001) = $13,596,911
Anastasia (Fox; November 1997) = 58,406,347
Titan AE (Fox; June 2000) = $22,753,426
Ice Age (Fox; March 2002) = $176,387,405
Antz (Dreamworks; October 1998) = $90,689,703
Prince of Egypt (Dreaworks; December 1998) = $101,413,188
Chicken Run (Dreamworks; June 2000) = $106,834,564
Shrek (Dreamworks; May 2001) = $267,665,011
Spirit: Stallion of the Cimmaron (Dreamworks; May 2002) = $73,280,117
Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas (Dreamworks; July 2003) = $25,893,506*
Tarzan (Disney; June 1999) = $171,091,819
Dinosaur (Disney; May 2000) = $137,748,063
Atlantis (Disney; June 2001) = $84,056,472
Lilo & Stitch (Disney; June 2002) = $145,794,338
Spirited Away (Disney; September 2002) = $9,958,691
Treasure Planet (Disney; November 2002) = $38,176,783
Toy Story (Disney/Pixar; November 1995) = $191,796,233
A Bug's Life (Disney/Pixar; November 1998) = $162,798,565
Toy Story 2 (Disney/Pixar; November 1999) = $245,852,179
Monsters Inc (Disney/Pixar; November 2001) = $255,873,250
Finding Nemo (Disney/Pixar; June 2003) = $326,407,865*
The Rugrats Movie (Paramount; November 1998) = $100,494,675
Rugrats in Paris (Paramount; November 2000) = $76,507,756
Jimmy Nuetron: Boy Genius (Paramount; December 2001) = $80,936,232
The Wild Thornberrys (Paramount; December 2002) =$39,882,925
Rugrats Go Wild (Paramount; June 2003) = $38,597,402*
And Just for the heck of it:
Pokemon: The First Movie (Warner Bros; November 1999) = $85,744,662
Pokemon 2000 (Warner Bros; July 2000) = $43,758,684
Pokemon 3 (Warner Bros; April 2001) = $17,052,128
Pokemon 4ever (Dimension; October 2002) = $1,727,447
Pokemon Heroes (Miramax; May 2003) = $746,381*
Final Fantasy: The Spirit Within (Sony; July 2001) = $32,131,830
* Estimates
Last edited by Goldberg74; 08-16-03 at 10:22 AM.
08-15-03, 10:42 PM
#12
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: In my secret underground lair, plotting to TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!! Bwuaaahahahaha!!
Posts: 4,590
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Goldberg74, you forgot one:
Spirited Away (Studio Ghibli, Buena Vista) = 260 Million Dollars plus worldwide... Winner of Best Animated Feature at this year's Academy Awards.
Spirited Away (Studio Ghibli, Buena Vista) = 260 Million Dollars plus worldwide... Winner of Best Animated Feature at this year's Academy Awards.
08-15-03, 10:46 PM
#13
DVD Talk Legend
2D animation mixed or augmented by 3D CGI is still considered 2D. Hell, otherwise every piece of "traditional" Disney animation since The Great Mouse Detective could be classified as "2D mixed with CGI".
Amen to that, but Bluth's output has always been, IMHO, pretty spotty. I like his animation style but the stories he has employed have been kind of yecchy.
Then again, he was an animator for Xanadu...
it's all about story telling. if Don Bluth can get a good story out. I welcome more.
Then again, he was an animator for Xanadu...
08-15-03, 10:48 PM
#14
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by littlefuzzy
Goldberg74, you forgot one:
Spirited Away (Studio Ghibli, Buena Vista) = 260 Million Dollars plus worldwide... Winner of Best Animated Feature at this year's Academy Awards.
Goldberg74, you forgot one:
Spirited Away (Studio Ghibli, Buena Vista) = 260 Million Dollars plus worldwide... Winner of Best Animated Feature at this year's Academy Awards.
08-15-03, 11:25 PM
#15
Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally posted by Goldberg74
Spirited Away (Disney; September 2002) = $9,958,691
Spirited Away (Disney; September 2002) = $9,958,691
Its sad to say that more often than not, 2D animated movies are not profitable right now. The 3D mentality of animated film is taking over Hollywood.
Personally I didn't like Shrek (too much potty-humor for me) or Spirited Away (it was too slow and pretencious for me), but they won.
I would rather have seen Monster's Inc (2001) and Lilo & Stitch (2002) walk away with the trophy... they need to expand the oscars to include Male and Female leads for Voice Acting, Script Writing and Direction.
What they really need is a whole sub-catergory for Animated Features.
But I digress... the point here is that except for the occassional 2D film with a good plot and story, 3D animated features (whether good or bad) will continue to beat 2D films in the box office.
Last edited by Goldberg74; 08-15-03 at 11:29 PM.
08-15-03, 11:42 PM
#16
Moderator
Thread Starter
Some more math from the totals of the movies above:
3D Films (11 movies)
Total Domestic Gross: $1,968,286,336
Average: $178,935,121.45
2D and Mixed Films (23 movies)
Total Domestic Gross: $1,369,345,869
Average: $59,536,776.91
Average based on 18 films (with the Pokemon franchise removed): $67,795,364.83
3D Films (11 movies)
Total Domestic Gross: $1,968,286,336
Average: $178,935,121.45
2D and Mixed Films (23 movies)
Total Domestic Gross: $1,369,345,869
Average: $59,536,776.91
Average based on 18 films (with the Pokemon franchise removed): $67,795,364.83
Last edited by Goldberg74; 08-15-03 at 11:45 PM.
08-16-03, 01:47 AM
#17
DVD Talk Legend
I would be really interested in seeing an alternate universe where Finding Nemo was a cel drawn movie, with the exact same story, performances, etc. I'm curious just how much it would make. I can't imagine it would've flopped, but it might've made less.
Inversely, would Treasure Planet have made 200 mil if it were fully computer animted. I don't see it. Sinbad is a strange case, because if had the Disney name and was released in 1997 or so it probably would've been a big hit. It fits into that Aladdin/Hercules mold. Dreamworks would've been better off releasing it out of season (March?) and not hyping the 'starpower'. Kids don't care about Brad Pitt or Catherine Zeta Jones, and the people who DO care about Brad Pitt and CZJ aren't interested in their voices.
Inversely, would Treasure Planet have made 200 mil if it were fully computer animted. I don't see it. Sinbad is a strange case, because if had the Disney name and was released in 1997 or so it probably would've been a big hit. It fits into that Aladdin/Hercules mold. Dreamworks would've been better off releasing it out of season (March?) and not hyping the 'starpower'. Kids don't care about Brad Pitt or Catherine Zeta Jones, and the people who DO care about Brad Pitt and CZJ aren't interested in their voices.
08-16-03, 09:12 AM
#18
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by Goldberg74
Pokemon 4ever (Warner Bros; October 2002) = $1,727,447
Pokemon Heroes (Warner Bros; May 2003) = $746,381*
Pokemon 4ever (Warner Bros; October 2002) = $1,727,447
Pokemon Heroes (Warner Bros; May 2003) = $746,381*
08-16-03, 10:22 AM
#19
Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally posted by Jay G.
Pokemon 4 & 5 were released by Miramax, not Warner Bros.
Pokemon 4 & 5 were released by Miramax, not Warner Bros.
I just find it really funny that the totals of the last four films doesn't even come close to the gross the first film brought in. Talk about a loss in popularity as far as feature films go.
08-16-03, 12:49 PM
#20
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by Goldberg74
4ever was disributed by Dimension, while you are correct about Heroes. Fixed it above.
4ever was disributed by Dimension, while you are correct about Heroes. Fixed it above.
I just find it really funny that the totals of the last four films doesn't even come close to the gross the first film brought in. Talk about a loss in popularity as far as feature films go.
08-16-03, 01:06 PM
#21
Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally posted by Jay G.
Where'd you get your info on 4ever? IMDB and the movie trailer cite Miramax as the distributor.
Where'd you get your info on 4ever? IMDB and the movie trailer cite Miramax as the distributor.
08-16-03, 09:23 PM
#22
DVD Talk Legend
I doubt the Mouse House, or Dreamworks cares too much about overseas ticket sales. That's just icing on the American Box Office take.
08-16-03, 09:32 PM
#23
Moderator
2d Cel animation is dead for Disney cause they don't have good enough script writers like Pixar's. It's not the animation technique, it's the simple fact that Disney can't have a good story to back up the animation.
08-16-03, 11:45 PM
#24
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: In my secret underground lair, plotting to TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!! Bwuaaahahahaha!!
Posts: 4,590
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by Goldberg74
Okay, I added it, but its not an impressive showing. Sure it won the Academy Award for Animation, but its paltry $9M to the previous year's winner (Shrek; $268M) doesn't prove your point. We are looking at domestic grosses here. I doubt the Mouse House, or Dreamworks cares too much about overseas ticket sales. That's just icing on the American Box Office take.
Okay, I added it, but its not an impressive showing. Sure it won the Academy Award for Animation, but its paltry $9M to the previous year's winner (Shrek; $268M) doesn't prove your point. We are looking at domestic grosses here. I doubt the Mouse House, or Dreamworks cares too much about overseas ticket sales. That's just icing on the American Box Office take.
08-17-03, 07:01 AM
#25
DVD Talk Legend
If they could make a Wallace and Gromit movie using CG and you couldn't tell it wasn't stop-motion, would you care? I wouldn't... thing is, at this point you can still tell. Look at South Park - when they went from construction paper to CG, you could tell... they spent alot of money to make it look low tech, but it still wasn't good enough. I still enjoy the show and don't care that it's not construction paper, so I guess I don't get my own point here. I can still get my 2D animation from Japan where they know how to do it well anyway.