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

[lrodk]

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.

[Bob O]

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.

[mickeyminnie]

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

[TheLionKing]

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..

[Another Voice]

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.

[Cybele]

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:

[Bob O]

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.

[EUROPA]

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.

[Cybele]

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

[Planogirl]

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. :)

[Bob O]

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!

[Cybele]

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

[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...

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:

[Cybele]

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:

[EUROPA]

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.

[EUROPA]

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

[Peter Pirate]

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:

[raidermatt]

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

[Bob O]

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!!!

[Cybele]

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:

[Cybele]

I will admit I did laugh at much of Shrek but the Disney bashing just got OLD. I'm not a fanatic and I do think Eisner needs to take a really good look at himself and the decisions he has been making.

But it seemed like Shrek was trying to beat a dead horse after the 10th or 12th bad Disney joke. It is easier to parody and make fun of than it is to create something totaly original so that is why I wasn't as big a fan of Shrek as many were.

Like I said if they do a better story for Shrek 2 I will be happy to go see it.

[Another Voice]

Aye, the Pirate has returned…..

Actually, it was Pixar that struck the deal with Disney. The Mouse wanted some software which Pixar had developed (Disney thought the software would let them lay-off all the “in-betweeners” they had). In lieu of some cash, Pixar asked for (and got) a distribution deal from The Mouse. At the time the deal was signed, Disney thought of it as a rather small deal – Eisner was dumping hundreds of millions into developing The Secret Lab and buying other CGI animation companies. There were more than a few boardroom jokes about Disney’s mighty dinosaurs stomping all over those little Pixar toys. Had they but known…

The success of Pixar movies is due Mr. Lassister and the others Pixar. Disney is simply the retailer. I seriously doubt anyone runs down and hugs the cashier at the local supermarket because of all the hard work that goes into making Oreo Cookies. It’s the same deal here. Eisner deserves no credit.

As for Pixar’s going it alone – that was the conventional wisdom right up until both ‘Shrek’ and ‘Ice Age’ trounced Disney at the box office. The era of brand-name animation is over, and it’s going to make Pixar fantastically wealthy.

[raidermatt]

So we're back to the old question of whether the top guy deserves any credit for decisions that turn out well...

Clearly Pixar needed Disney or they wouldn't have asked for the licensing deal. Pixar knew (or at least believed) that they could gross more money with the Disney name than without it. If they were wrong, that was a costly mistake.

Until the licensing deal runs out, they are Disney films. What happens at that point is another issue...

As for Pixar’s going it alone – that was the conventional wisdom right up until both ‘Shrek’ and ‘Ice Age’ trounced Disney at the box office.

A little confused on this point, AV. Are you saying that Pixar is more likely to re-up with Disney because Disney will have no choice but to pay more than was thought a year ago? I ask because the next phrase leads me to believe Pixar would be foolish to re-sign with Disney because you're saying that people will go to any animated film that is good, regardless of whether it has the Disney name on it.

The era of brand-name animation is over, and it’s going to make Pixar fantastically wealthy.

Actually, I'm not sure I agree with this point anyway, but not for the reason you might think. The era of brand-name animation is not over, because it never really existed. Disney used to dominate animation mostly because it produced the best films hands down, and their reputation gave them an added boost. Now, there are multiple challengers, and while Disney still has a brand advantage, we are learning that the name alone never really was the main reason for their success. The Disney name probably added 5-10% to a box office total in the past, and is still probably in the 5% range. When they produced films that were 5x better than anything else out there, it was easy to get sucked into believing there was no way to top the Disney name. But now, they no longer are producing films that are judged to be better than everyone else.

This is really the first legitimate challenge to their reign, and it will be interesting to see how they respond over the next couple of years.

With two new Disney (not Pixar) films on the way this year, and the Dreamworks 2d release coming in a couple of weeks, the box office will tell us soon enough.

[Bob O]

Cybele- Sorry i didnt mean to diminsh the past greatness of disney animation. i was speaking of their current animated releases. Who think emperor's new groove/mulan as example's are going to be thought of as classics while the new Pixar creations IMHO will have far more longevity and the possibility of being considered classic's.
raidermatt so are we too believe that the new Star Wars film and the old star wars film's are Fox films?????? Well fox is the distributor just as disney is for Pixar but nobody would claim the new Star Wars is a fox production and not a George Lucas production. So to call them disney films is a joke and a insult to the creators of the fine films Pixar has produced with no creative in put at all from Disney. They have never been disney films and arent!! Distributing a movie has nothing in the least to do with the creativity of the movies!! Why else did disney try to buy off lassetter to revive their failing animated empire???
And i hope their 2 new releases do well but does anybody think they will do better box office than Toy Story/Monsters/Bugs Life???

[raidermatt]

Yes, Star Wars is a Fox film.

I never said Disney created the films, but just like Disney is responsible for any crud that any of their contractors put out, they are also responsible for anything good that comes out as well.

Yes it would be better for them if they had created it themselves, but people still think of Woody and Buzz as Disney characters, not Pixar characters. They carry the Disney name.

If the agreement were expiring tomorrow, Disney would be foolish to not try to extend the deal, regardless of how big a hit L&S or TP turn out to be.

[Bob O]

Nobody at all thinks of Star Wars as a fox film!!!! It is thought of as a George Lucas film and the media isnt going all out to interview fox executives, they are trying to get a interview with the creator-George Lucas!! Lucas chose fox to distribute the film but that is all their involvement is in the film as he wanted from the beginning total control and Pixar will do the same once free of their contract so disney cant take credit for the hard work of others!!
And no Buzz/Woody arent disney characters, they are Pixar's!!! Now barbie was in one of the films as was Mr Potato head so are they now also Disney Characters, as are all the characters who were in roger rabbit now disney characters????
Disney wants people to believe they are their characters because they have shown a recent inability to produce their own!!

[JeffJewell]

Star Wars is a Fox film Instead of giving credit to a human being who birthed a dream, you would give credit to a faceless corporation that wrote a check. Talk about looking at the wrong end of the miracle.

Nothing personal, Matt, but reading your posts breaks my heart.

Jeff

[Another Voice]

I apologize if I wasn’t clear.

The conventional wisdom was that Pixar had to sign up with Disney, because only “Disney” animated films would work at the box office. That’s more a result of Walt’s fifty years of efforts than Michael’s ten, but that’s quibbling. And in a lot of ways it was proven as bad movies from other studios (‘Swan Princess’, ‘The Road to El Dorado’) tanked, as well as a few very good ones (‘Iron Giant’). And everybody knows about the test Warners did with one of their movie: the same movie with the DISNEY® brand on it tested three times as high as the same movie with the Warners label. Gee, even Michael Jordan’s turn at the Roger Rabbit movie failed, and that was a “Hollywood Sure Thing”.

Fortunately, Mr. Katzenburg didn’t agree. After a few faltering starts, he was able to produce ‘Shrek’, a movie that succeeded at the box office in spite of its brand name. For the first time, there was an animated movie that was seen by the public and the industry as being “as good as” a Disney film. All it takes is one to break the habit and now audiences are flocking to see others: ‘Ice Age’, ‘Jimmy Neutron’, and maybe ‘Spirit’. Before it would have been impossible for Pixar to “go it alone” because of the Disney-brand issue. Now that the market is freed and Pixar has a very strong brand of its own, they will not have any trouble getting either financing or distribution.

On the flip side, the Disney brand itself has been seriously weakened over the last seven years. It was widely held that Disney got stuck in a creative rut, more interested in making movies with high merchandising potential than movies that an audience really wanted to see. The audience felt burned by lackluster films like ‘Pocahontas’, ‘Mulan’ and ‘Hercules’. The brand got cheapened. Even Disney understands the damage. Count the number of times someone says “this isn’t a typical Disney movie” when they talk about ‘Atlantis’ and ‘Lilo and Stitch’.

The end result is now “a level playing field” in terms of audience’s expectations. The competitors – Dreamworks, Fox, Pixar – make movies that are just as good as Disney’s. In fact, The Mouse had a difficult time getting ‘Lilo’ booked into theaters. All those screens that used to be reserved for “the sure thing” have been given to the other guys.

Now about this whole issue about trying to shoehorn credit over to ME: taking credit for a movie that isn’t yours is a long Hollywood tradition. Many argue that a certain executive’s career really got started when he stole credit for ‘Flash Dance’. Since habits linger, he’s been going around ordering people to pat him on the back for his “good job”. The people who need to know about who-gets-what over Pixar know the real story. If fandom wants to believe something different, I think there’s very little anyone can do except present the arguments.

The problem is that a certain tall, balding executive has a really bad problem with believing his own press. It was that certainty about one’s own “genius” that caused The Secret Lab to be shut, all the animators to be fired, “can’t miss films” to be pushed through incomplete and staking the entire studio’s reputation on cheap sequels drawn to sub-TV standards. And it was a certainty in the power of The Brand that caused him to overplay his hand and drive away Pixar.

More mistakes are bound to follow.

[YoHo]

Just to Clarify, with the Soul exception of Star Wars the original, George Lucas paid for the other four out of Pocket. Fox did nothing but Slap a Fanfare and Logo on them and run to the bank. There is very little Valid compairison there.

As I've said before, I doubt very much that traditional Animation is dead unless Disney and Dreamworks decide to kill it. It is foolish and cynical to think that the entire movie going public is a bunch of mindless drone who care only about the latest technology.

[Cybele]

Hey folks!
I'm back and there are some really good points out there.
Thanks Bob O for clarifying your earlier comments.

I think, for the most part, we all agree that animation can easily remain a mix of both CGI and hand drawn with a strong market for both styles as well as a mix of the two.
Pixar can definately survive on it's own once its deal with Disney is through. The big deal is that even when/if they do they will more than likely still need to distribute it through another company. Pixar is a local company where I live (Oakland, California) and most of there efforts are spent on the animation/story process so I would think they may continue with Disney as a distrubutor or possibly go to another but they get a lot of press through Disney so we will see.

I disagree with the person who posted Mulan was a subpar film. It did very well and was even welcomed by the Chinese who's tale it originally was. It was very well animated and beautifully told and was a big success for Disney. It was an excellent story away from the norm of fairy tales where object of true love is the major plot point (Mermaid, Aladdin, B&B plus many of the classics.)
Also we should remember at this point the only major CGI film had been Toy Story.

Hercules had its problems but it also had some good points but it definitly was not as high a quality as Mulan, Little Mermaid, B&B and Aladdin. I just found ENG very funny a much more light hearted film than they had done in a while. I know about all the changes they did etc, but as a whole it got some very positive reviews from the press.
Cheers everyone!:bounce: :jester:

[Bob O]

I dont think traditional animation is dead but i think the younger generations coming up wont have the same emotional attachment as some of us might have.
It still comes down to the quailty of the story but i think with kids now a days if all things are equal they will perfer the computer graphics over hand drawn. Of course the true test will be to have a excellant movie of each version out in the marketplace at the same time and see what the public pefers and how they vote with their pocketbooks. You can do alot of things with computer graphics that cant be repeated with handdrawn animation or it will be too costly to the bean counters!

[raidermatt]

I've already said that Disney did not create the Pixar films. I thought the tie-in that Fox did not create Star Wars was clear, but obviously it wasn't.

I am not at all trying to give creative credit for these movies to Disney or Fox.

With respect to Pixar, the simple fact is that Disney owns the licensing to the characters, uses them in the parks, and has their name all over the films. To at least 95% of the public, they are first and foremost Disney characters and films. Those who know the essence of the business deal know that Pixar deserves most of the credit. But since most don't, and furthermore don't care, the characters are known as Disney characters.

If this makes anyone sad, don't blame me. I am merely the messenger.

And Disney still deserves credit for the business part of the deal, as it has been very lucrative for them. Maybe they stumbled into it having no clue how successful it would be for them, but its not like that is an uncommon occurence in show business.

Now, should Pixar blow Disney off after the deal runs out, Disney will have problems in that they haven't been able to compete with what Pixar can put out. In some ways, its similar to the Millionaire situation at ABC. Millionaire masked the creative weaknesses in the rest of ABC's lineup, just as Pixar is masking the weaknesses in Disney Animation. The Pixar situation is actually worse in that Pixar will become a competitor with Disney, instead of fading into oblivion like Millionaire.

However, Disney still has time on the animation front, especially with two films coming in the next 6 months. Also, the Disney/Pixar deal has three more films in it, and a lot can happen during that time.

As for Star Wars, the tie between Fox and Star Wars is not as strong with the public as Toy Story and Disney. But even so, while most people know that George Lucas is responsible, most also know that Fox has its name on the film and probably think they are more involved than just being a distributor.

Regardless, while the reality of the Lasseter to Lucas analogy may be accurate, it doesn't hold up in the public's view. Disney is associated with the Pixar films far more than Fox is with Star Wars. If Lasseter/Pixar gain the levels of fame that Lucas has, maybe the public perception would be different. But that's just not the case with the Toy Story/Monsters/Bugs characters.

[Another Voice]

You might want to do a quick review of all the press concerning ‘Monsters, Inc.’. It think the message about it being a Pixar movie is coming through very loud and very clear to public. And by the time the final three movies are released, people will certainly understand what’s going on. Pixar has EVERY incentive in the world to make sure there is a distinct identity for their films and they are already working hard at it.

It’s also very clear that the DISNEY® label on a film means almost nothing at the box office, even for animation. In a lot of ways this is a good development because films will now have to survive off their own merit. And Disney simply can’t shovel the stuff out confident in the power of Brand Marketing to cover-up bad filmmaking.

[Bob O]

I hope for disney's sake their films do good but im very skeptical!!!
Their is alot of competition this summer and at x-mas time so for disney's movies to stand out in the crowd they will have to be excellant movie's. If the movies arent excellant people may see the movie once but not mutiple times which is what makes a movie a big money maker!! Escepcially when their are several movies being released most weekends!!
A big hit would be to match the least successful of the Pixar movies and i dont see it happening!! But i hope im wrong and just being pesssmistic!!

[Peter Pirate]

Au contraire Bob, I think 'Lilo and Stitch' could be very big...Voice, what do you think? How's the buzzzzzzzzz?
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[Bob O]

So then are we too assume that Lilo and Stitch will outdo Monsters Inc or Toy Story??? If a movie is going to be called VERY BIG arent we looking at least 200 million at the box office???
Will it out do Ice Age at least????

[Peter Pirate]

I'm no expert, but it'll probably be way less expensive than the Pixar movies, so profitability will come quicker, but I'd bet 150 is certainly possible. I'd really like Voice's opinion here...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[Bob O]

Im no expert on costs of movies but from what ive read their isnt a big difference in the costs of making a movie between cgi and hand drawn. Imsure somebody more knowlegdeable than i could help out with more details.

[Another Voice]

Most of the cost for a CGI movie has been spent in software development since the technology is changing so rapidly. And a lot of money also goes into “talent” like voices and the semi-obligatory but instantly-forgettable song that has to be inserted. Disney is notorious for their massive overhead on both CGI and traditional movies. ‘Ice Age’ only cost about $60 million and ‘Jimmy Neutron’ cost about $30 million because they used lesser priced talent and existing software. But ‘Peter Pan 2’ cost $15 million by using cheap talent and cheap animation factories. ‘Atlantis’ cost over $100 million mostly through bloat and overhead. But then again so did ‘Monsters’. There are too many factors involved to make a blanket statement about the cost of CGI compared to traditional.

‘Lilo’ was a film orphaned by Disney management and kept under constant pressure to be cheap. And I think that made it a much better film. Without the ability to simply throw money at a problem (a la ‘Atlantis’), the creators were forced to come up with imaginative solutions to problems. Just like Walt had to do. And without the corporate “help” on music selection, character/plush design, and a herd of managers involved in every decision, the film was actually made by film makers instead of MBA’s. The cost of a movie is much less important than the people behind the movie.

I’m not really sure how well ‘Lilo’ is going to do. As I’ve said, the Disney brand means nothing at the box office anymore and the movie is going to have to make it on its own merits. This summer is crowded with family films – not only ‘Spirit’ but ‘Stuart Little 2’ and ‘Men in Black 2’ are going to siphon off the box office. I’m also concerned that Disney is not doing a good job on selling this film to the media trednsetters: the newspaper and magazine articles, “upcoming hot summer movie” shows, and all the other publicity that generates a “buzz” in the general public. ‘Spirit’ seems way ahead here.

I also think this film is going to infuriate the “pretty princess” crowd that likes ‘Mulan’, ‘Pocahontas’ and ‘Emperor’. It really is a very different kind of movie for Disney. People who are expecting another soft and gentle flick are going to be really thrown for one. The “blow them up good” crowd from ‘Atlantis’ is going to be disappointed as well. Much more goes on in the film then just laser fights. The word of mouth on this one is going to make or kill this film and I don’t know how it’s going to cut right now.

[Peter Pirate]

OK so it seems L&S will probably have been less expensive to make than Monsters (which is what I thought). This will give Disney a much lower breakeven. Plus, they do not seem to be pushing this to death so PR costs will not be stratospheric as PH & Atlantis...Again, an earlier profit point.

Voice isn't sure where this film will go yet & I can respect that, but IMO indications would seem to be that this will be a very good movie for Disney...We can only hope that the way it was made & if successful will not fall on blind eyes (you listening Mike).
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[Bob O]

I dont know if anybody here reads the wall street journal and their web site is a pay site so i cant provide a link but they had a very interesting article about disney and pixar and how the success of pixar has made the disney company 500 million so far but the future may not be rosy as jobs isnt happy at all with eisner. Its worth a look if you can find the paper.
I hope liol and stitch does great at the box office but due to disney's recent past im not as positive as peter pirate.