Dreamworks says "No More Hand-Drawn" animation

[CWIPPERMAN]

From the Interment Movie Database "Studio Briefs" page ( http://us.imdb.com/StudioBrief/ )

The End of Hand-Drawn Animation?

Saying that the studio is "extremely disappointed" by the poor box-office performance of Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas, DreamWorks animation chief Ann Daly has told the New York Times that the film will be the studio's last hand-drawn animation feature. Sinbad, which reportedly cost $70 million to produce, has earned only $23.3 million since its opening on July 2. DreamWorks principal Jeffrey Katzenberg, who built his reputation by supervising some of Disney's biggest animation hits, suggested that the conventional "2-D" form of animating movies may now be obsolete. "I think the idea of a traditional story being told using traditional animation is likely a thing of the past," he told the Times.

 

[JoNo]

How come this doesn't surprise me? I mean, you know, who needs an animated movie when you have CG, right?

I bet Walt rolled over in his grave and then screamed "WHYYYYYYYYYY?" when he heard...

 

[Planogirl]

This is what I was afraid would happen. Oh well, I guess that it was inevitable. Thanks for the story.

 

[d-r]

dreamworks is sticking with the two things they know best.

First, following the storied tradition of a cgi movie about ants, a cartoon about two buddies traveling in south america, and a cartoon set on pirate ships, comes a cgi movie about a litle fish.

Then comes the follow up to the one trick that has worked for them, Shrek 2.

To me, what happens with Sharkslayer is going to be more interesting. Slick animation, big name voices, it should look good in the previews. I wonder what will happen. Shrek 2 will be a big success for them - I think it will follow a different trajectory than Shrek 1, opening a lot bigger and dropping a lot faster, but it will have as much or more box office I bet.

I think that there is going to be a real glut of cgi films - dreamworks, pixar, disney, sony, wb, viacom/nic, fox, and others are going to lay it on. As that happens there will probably be a loss of quality and people will begin to catch on to it. Then, maybe someday someone who really cares about art and craft and story and acting will make a great traditionally animated film and it will succeed and the executives will scrath their heads. Who knows, maybe Miyazaki and Ghibli will make a movie so beautiful that it will actually be a box office success in the US. I doubt it though. Next year will belong to dreamworks as this year has belonged to Disney/Pixar; at that point there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth and doomsday tales, then the next year will come with the glut and we will all see what happens.

It will be interesting to see what happens. At least those who are having young children now have a library of dvd classics to draw upon for their kids.

DR

PS they are adding a new trick, a cgi tv series that will be on NBC in 2004. Called "Father of the Pride" it is about Segreid and Roy's animals in Las Vegas.

 

[ArcticWildMan]

Interesting. I guess they are going to scapegoat the animation department. IMO, Sinbad was a film that just didn't lend itself to animation very well. They also are overlooking the fact that the story line just isn't catchy to younger audiences.

It'll be interesting to see if this truely signals the end of the 2D animation era.

 

[grinningghost]

Hey, they're the experts, right? To think that nobody wants to watch handdrawn animation anymore is, IMHO, nuts. I love the CG movies, but handdrawn is really where it's at for me. I hope all the studios don't decide to go this route.

 

[Testtrack321]

Simply saying traditional animation is dead because one bad movie from the start bombs is stupid. Look at Lilo & Stitch. People don't want a hybrid of CGI and hand drawn, then want one or another.

 

[DisneyKidds]

IMO, Sinbad was a film that just didn't lend itself to animation very well. They also are overlooking the fact that the story line just isn't catchy to younger audiences.

Agreed. As I have have always said, success or failure for an animated feature has more to do with story and appeal than it does with what medium is used. Even if CGI has a leg up on hand drawns it doesn't mean hand drawns can't be successful.

 

[jlambrig]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Agreed. As I have have always said, success or failure for an animated feature has more to do with story and appeal than it does with what medium is used. Even if CGI has a leg up on hand drawns it doesn't mean hand drawns can't be successful.

How true, but what I don't agree with is the notion that the "story line just isn't catchy to younger audiences" as another poster states. Nemo wasn't geared to younger audiences but to adults. Same with Pixar's other features. Listen to their people, they say they are designing movies to appeal to adults, they are just very happy that kids like them too. The key is, as DK points out, the story. If it is good, it will have wide appeal.

Sinbad would have been perfect for animation if written well. I still remember seeing Sinbad movies when I was a kid with what is horrible F/X now (good then in some cases). Animation can solve those problems as you can do anything you want.

Sharkslayer could be a real watershed event for DW. If it succeeds, we will see more, if not, we may see Shrek become the next Bond or Rocky type franchise.

 

[wdwguide]

Snow White still makes the Walt Disney Company millions of dollars a year in revenue, almost 70 years after its release. I somehow doubt that films like Shrek or Toy Story will do the same once they reach that age. Hand drawn animation, especially in fairy-tale settings, is timeless. CGI in most cases doesn't age well at all. Look at Tron now...
CGI is a fad because it's new and sexy. It'll make lots of money for a few years, until everyone jumps on the bandwagon and starts releasing inferior titles.
Hand drawn animation is just as out as "guitar bands" were in 1962, when Decca refused to sign the Beatles. And we all know how that story ended.

 

[mitros]

Didn't Disney just lay off 100 animators in Florida? They were talking about scaling way back on producing animated films at disney mgm. Could this be the start of disney eliminating hand drawn cartoons? Hopefully not!

 

[Testtrack321]

Originally posted by wdwguide
Snow White still makes the Walt Disney Company millions of dollars a year in revenue, almost 70 years after its release. I somehow doubt that films like Shrek or Toy Story will do the same once they reach that age. Hand drawn animation, especially in fairy-tale settings, is timeless. CGI in most cases doesn't age well at all. Look at Tron now...
CGI is a fad because it's new and sexy. It'll make lots of money for a few years, until everyone jumps on the bandwagon and starts releasing inferior titles.
Hand drawn animation is just as out as "guitar bands" were in 1962, when Decca refused to sign the Beatles. And we all know how that story ended.

"The last three letters in trend are e-n-d."

Marty Sklar

 

[Planogirl]

Sinbad was not bad enough to justify the returns. The reviews were fine, the problem is that no one went to see it. JMO.

Snow White makes money because it's a classic. I wonder if there will be any new hand-drawn classics? Will Lilo be a classic along the lines of Snow White? I think that Toy Story certainly has a better chance of being a strong classic than Lilo. Toy Story has a strong story and appealing characters and yes, appealing animation.

It'll be interesting to see how Brother Bear performs.

 

[wdwguide]

It'll indeed be interesting to see how well BB does.

 

[KNWVIKING]

*** "I bet Walt rolled over in his grave and then screamed "WHYYYYYYYYYY?" when he heard..." ***

Why would you think that. Walt loved technology - just look at CoP. Look at all the advances he was responsible for in the cartoon biz. I think he would have embraced CG the way Pixar has.

 

[Mouse Ears]

I think at least part of the apparent lack of demand for traditionally animated films is due to the glut of animation that people are now exposed to.

10 years ago, there were only a couple of animated films each year and few TV shows. Now, there are many more in both TV and film. For example, there were 12 animated films released in 2002. 10 were traditional (primarily anyway) and 2 were CGI. The 10 traditional totalled over 400 million in the NA box office with the 2 CGI total of 202 million.

So, while the average for traditional is lower, that may change as we see a greater portion of the animation show up in CGI. Besides, the total gross of all animated films has stayed rather flat over the last five years.

 

[WDWHound]

(Sigh) Is everyone in Hollywood starting to think like Eisner? Its not the medium, its the story damn it!!! Tell a good story with interesting, engaging characters and people will come to see you movie. Fail to do so and people will stay away. People avoided Dreamwork's last 2 traditionally animated efforts because they failed in the character and plot department, not in the animation department.

I am so disappointed. I actually thought the folks at Dreamworks had a clue.

 

[Planogirl]

Originally posted by WDWHound
(Sigh) Is everyone in Hollywood starting to think like Eisner? Its not the medium, its the story damn it!!! Tell a good story with interesting, engaging characters and people will come to see you movie. Fail to do so and people will stay away. People avoided Dreamwork's last 2 traditionally animated efforts because they failed in the character and plot department, not in the animation department.

I am so disappointed. I actually thought the folks at Dreamworks had a clue.

These pictures that you mention may have failed just as you say but how did the public know? The reviews for Sinbad were not bad and one can't really tell anything from a trailer so how did the public decide that the movie was bad? Keep in mind that no one even showed up for the opening weekend so word of mouth can't really be blamed either.

Something had to turn off people without them really knowing whether the movie was good or bad. That's what I've been wondering about.

 

[Tekneek]

These executives are jumping to conclusions, which is about the only thing most of them seem to be good at. They should at least wait and see what the video rental/purchase market brings for the title. More people are willing to rent a movie than go to see it in the theatre. Just because people did not think it was worth $8 in the theatre does not mean they will not rent it wildly, and then buy it.

Oh well. It seems to be the chic thing to crap on traditional animation these days. It will pass.

 

[DisOrBust]

Sorry but my DD 5 and 8yo don't give a rats hat if its CGI or HD. They want a good story plain and simple. They laughed all thru Nemo and yawned thru Treasure Planet. The one thing they really complain about are the sequels because the animation is SO BAD. That they pick up on right away and say its a "nintendo movie".. It bothers them when Ariel just doen't "look" right. WE haven't seen Sinbad yet frankly because I really didn't know it was being released and the weather has been to go to waste on a movie. Just IMHO. I am no expert but doesn't CGI start as hand drwn images that are "loaded"" into the computers???