Eisner's Thoughts on Pixar

[raidermatt]

This is one of those arguments that cannot be absolutely proven either way.

There's examples of technologies that faded away, and there's examples of techniques that endured.

Its true nobody else is picking up the 2D ball, but then again, nobody else ever really did, even while Disney got rich off of it. Using that logic means Disney never should have made animated movies in the first place, and definitely should have stopped when they had a few failures.

In an attempt to impersonate a reasonable person, I have to admit that its possible the majority of animated films will be more successful as 3d, all else being equal. There's not definite proof of that, mind you, but there are certainly some indications that is the case.

But, all else is never equal.

I happen to believe that 2D is still the best choice for some stories, and therefore killing it is a mistake.

However, that aside, the bigger problem I have is the reasons why Eisner is ditching it.

Disney has quite simply made a string of largely sub-par animated features. THAT is the primary reason why they have stuggled.

Making them in 3d may or may not have had an impact on their box office take, but there's no way is the primary cause of the issues.

Yet he presents it as a problem with the medium rather than a problem with creative process as it stands at Disney these days.

"FURTHER"? What about this is "further"? If you want points for figuring out how to re-direct every conversation toward an indictment of the current Disney regime, then I happily award you 12 or more bonus points. Then again, I'm not sure of the relevant utility in bringing out that trick pony on every thread...In other words, "Hey Raidermatt...I'm not trying to sneak an Eisner is God point past your Eisner is Anti-Christ super-filter." 'Kay?

Sorry, but I'm not going to get into one of your 5 page debates on why Snacky's original statement is flawed logically (sorry, Snacky, but it is).

There's a bigger picture here, as is usually the case.

Yes, there are other reasons why Disney animated films have been struggling, and why nobody else is picking up the ball on 2d. That's what I was discussing.

Its a decision made with flawed reasoning and it comes from a flawed regime. Can't help it if you don't want to hear that.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"I happen to believe that 2D is still the best choice for some stories, and therefore killing it is a mistake."***

Matt, can you elaborate on "best choice for some stories" ? I'm not trying to be arguementive, I'm just not very critical when it comes to movies - animated or non animated. I would have enjoyed BatB in CGI just as much as I would have enjoyed TS in 2D. Greg didn't like the way CGI humans looked, but if those charactors could be made to look more 2D, would that temper your "best choice" statement ?

I agree that had TP and Home been huge successes we would not be having this discussion right now. IMO, ME is making the right decision going to CGI, but for the wrong reasons.

 

[Captain Crook]

Pop Century is great....Ooop's. Wrong thread???

 

[ErikdaRed]

For realistic CGI humans watch Final Fantasy and the Animatrix (Final flight of the Osiris). And I doubt we will never see a 2-D feature again, but when we do, I bet its a 2D render from CGI. Ink and coloring just costs too much.

 

[cristen]

Well, if that were true, then somebody, anybody, in the whole wide world (short of anime') would surely be able to think up a few good stories worth telling in 2-D.

Isn't Pixar starting a traditional animation department?

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by thedscoop
Because Mr. SnackyStacky's original post states that the "only" reason that 2-D animation is dead is because Eisner fired all the "creative talent".

So, I'm suggesting that, if that premise is true, then surely some good capitalist producer or studio would have hired all this discarded creative talent and started producing this generation's Beauty or Hunchback or Mermaid or Lion King or Alladin...

Or, maybe, the reason why 2-D animation has been abandoned by today's studios has a much deeper meaning than simply "Eisner fired all the good animators"...

Look at every decade since Steamboat Willie and you'll see classic 2-D animated works. However, we are getting close to half way through this decade and the closest we get is Lilo & Stitch.

Why?

Have all the good stories been told already?

Do you really think Jeffrey Katzenberg would have killed Dreamworks use of 2-D animation if it still had even a small amount of commercial viability left in its tank?

Again. Yes. We may get a great 2-D animation in the future but only as an occasional exception to the norm. Even today we'll get an occasional hit western or musical even though those two genres are quite expired.

But, the results of the last 5 or so years really seem to indicate that the days of 2-D animation producing a yearly or even bi-yearly classic are over.

Where did I say animators? I didn't. I very carefully chose the words "creative talent", because as has been disputed here, it goes well beyond animators.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by raidermatt
This is one of those arguments that cannot be absolutely proven either way.

There's examples of technologies that faded away, and there's examples of techniques that endured.

Its true nobody else is picking up the 2D ball, but then again, nobody else ever really did, even while Disney got rich off of it. Using that logic means Disney never should have made animated movies in the first place, and definitely should have stopped when they had a few failures.

In an attempt to impersonate a reasonable person, I have to admit that its possible the majority of animated films will be more successful as 3d, all else being equal. There's not definite proof of that, mind you, but there are certainly some indications that is the case.

But, all else is never equal.

I happen to believe that 2D is still the best choice for some stories, and therefore killing it is a mistake.

However, that aside, the bigger problem I have is the reasons why Eisner is ditching it.

Disney has quite simply made a string of largely sub-par animated features. THAT is the primary reason why they have stuggled.

Making them in 3d may or may not have had an impact on their box office take, but there's no way is the primary cause of the issues.

Yet he presents it as a problem with the medium rather than a problem with creative process as it stands at Disney these days.




Sorry, but I'm not going to get into one of your 5 page debates on why Snacky's original statement is flawed logically (sorry, Snacky, but it is).

There's a bigger picture here, as is usually the case.

Yes, there are other reasons why Disney animated films have been struggling, and why nobody else is picking up the ball on 2d. That's what I was discussing.

Its a decision made with flawed reasoning and it comes from a flawed regime. Can't help it if you don't want to hear that.

I have tunnel vision, and quite frequently the big picture is very hard for me to grasp.

HOWEVER, I still stand by my statements. I don't know the inner-workings of Disney, but who would have enough power to shutter the ENTIRE animation division in Orlando? The division that produced their ONLY recent box-office success? The division that also provided an attraction in one of their theme parks?

Whether or not Eisner fired them - I don't know, and quite frankly I don't care. Whatever the reason is - the creative people, ergo the creativity - is gone from Disney's Feature Animation.

 

[Captain Crook]

...It was a little bit funny...

But, as for this thread. I'm more with the scoop camp than the Greg camp, I think. If there were money to be made, irregardless of investment figures, somebody somewhere would have done it or would be trying it, but they're not. Instead BIG SUMS are being put into CGI.

Brother Bear was a perfect Disney movie that did so-so. Shrek 2 appears to be moderately well done but oceans away from the formula of BB...I think the difference is in public perception (who they think is hot...i.e PIXAR, Dreamworks or anybody except Disney) or what appeals to the pop culture mentality (again, BB or Shrek?).

Greg admitted that TP had GREAT animation but lacked in story...but what in this timeless story was really lacking? I think that perhaps it was (A) the hero was male (B) there was no love interest (C) no 'tear jerk' story line and (D) little humor. I think TP did exactly what it was intended to do but failed because nobody wanted what it did, even if it WAS done well.

2-D animation will again be successful when it again becomes profitable (i.e cool)...Which may be never. After all, CGI can give everything, including the appearance of hand drawn without the aggravation.

I don't like it but I think 2-D is gone. I think Mike is right in letting it go and I think Walt would have moved on much sooner...

 

[crusader]

By the way, I keep wondering, when we talk about hand-drawn being dead, are we specifically talking about feature films?

I am.

The U.S. market for traditional animation appears to lie predominantly in the television and direct to video sectors right now.

Disney should continue to capture these segments. Take for example Brother Bear - I'm guessing that the DVD sales were excellent and outperformed the box office returns making this film quite profitable for the company.

The question is: will Disney consider more features along this line with a possible limited theatre release strictly to promote the video sales? or

Is the cost for this type of animation gradually outpricing the U.S. market resulting in a heavy investment shift into the 3-D arena with a much higher rate of return?

Disney has quite simply made a string of largely sub-par animated features. THAT is the primary reason why they have stuggled.

Not true. Need I remind you of the non-Disney critically acclaimed Spirited Away??? A complete and utter box office flop in the U.S. not too long ago.

must have been lack of vision or sub-par animation according to your logic - or could it possibly be due to a bigger problem?

Such as - audience appeal toward the latest technological advancements in animation on the big screen.

(Hmmm.........kinda like when B&W meets technicolor. Now why do you suppose Eisner used that carefully chosen analogy?)

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by crusader
Such as - audience appeal toward the latest technological advancements in animation on the big screen.

(Hmmm.........kinda like when B&W meets technicolor. Now why do you suppose Eisner used that carefully chosen analogy?)

Hand-drawn animation is not simply a story-telling device. It's also an art form.

Instead of using B&W vs. color - let's try something more along the lines of - because oil paints were invented, watercolor painting ceased (or should cease) to exist.

 

[crusader]

Originally posted by SnackyStacky
Hand-drawn animation is not simply a story-telling device. It's also an art form.

Instead of using B&W vs. color - let's try something more along the lines of - because oil paints were invented, watercolor painting ceased (or should cease) to exist.

Fair enough. But how do you apply that to the motion picture industry absent real examples?

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by SnackyStacky
Whatever the reason is - the creative people, ergo the creativity - is gone from Disney's Feature Animation.

I think Don Hahn might dispute you on that ...

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by Captain Crook
I think TP did exactly what it was intended to do but failed because nobody wanted what it did, even if it WAS done well.

2-D animation will again be successful when it again becomes profitable (i.e cool)...Which may be never. After all, CGI can give everything, including the appearance of hand drawn without the aggravation.

I don't like it but I think 2-D is gone. I think Mike is right in letting it go and I think Walt would have moved on much sooner...

What he said......

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by WDSearcher
I think Don Hahn might dispute you on that ...

I respect Don Hahn's work. But he was part of the debacle that was Haunted Mansion. I lost mucho respect for him after that mess!

 

[raidermatt]

You guys gotta come up with better examples...

Dreamworks? They tried.

About 60+ years after Disney found success in the medium.

Again, based on your logic, Disney should have bailed long ago, given that they certainly had some down times, and nobody else was jumping in.

Crusader, Spirited Away? The film was never given a full release or promotional support. On top of that, you're confusing critical acclaim with audience appeal. You know those frequently do not go hand in hand. Horrible example.

Honestly, you're better off sticking to things like L&S would have faired even better if it were in 3d, since then you can just go the agree to disagree route.

Whether or not Eisner fired them - I don't know, and quite frankly I don't care. Whatever the reason is - the creative people, ergo the creativity - is gone from Disney's Feature Animation.

I didn't mean for my comment to sound the way it probably read... I don't think you were "wrong", just that you're hitting on a symptom rather than the actual cause.

At the least, there are a lot of other factors to consider, and the absolute statement you made is the type that some will pick apart on technicalities for pages if we let them... all the while failing to address the bigger picture issues.

Matt, can you elaborate on "best choice for some stories" ? I'm not trying to be arguementive, I'm just not very critical when it comes to movies - animated or non animated. I would have enjoyed BatB in CGI just as much as I would have enjoyed TS in 2D.

I agree that we can enjoy a story that appeals to us in many different ways.

Really, I'm not all that critical either about styles and such when it comes to movies. I watch it and either like it or don't. Sometimes I can put my finger on why, and sometimes not.

But that doesn't mean that things like styles and methods don't matter.

A good analogy that is easier to illustrate (pun intended) is the parks. Many people enjoy Disney's parks moreso than other parks, but they can't really begin to tell you why. They don't know anything about forced perspective, spoke and hub, weenies, or the type of chandelier used in one of the restaurants.

Another is Lilo & Stitch. L&S was done in water colors, because it was decided that was the best way to evoke the moods the makers wanted. Water colors had not been used for quite some time, but they did it anyway.

The point is, at this time, 2d and 3d certainly have different looks to them. Which is used is just another tool, just like the music, voice talent, etc, and they all do matter.

I don't like it but I think 2-D is gone. I think Mike is right in letting it go and I think Walt would have moved on much sooner...

Well, that raises a whole other set of issues. Such as... If 2D is really dead, and 3D is the way to go, why is Disney the last to jump on board? If Eisner couldn't see that, while others did, why do we continue to tolerate him as the leader of the company?

That aside, I'll concede that this MIGHT be the right choice, but agree with Viking that regardless, its being done for the wrong reasons.

Making films in 3d is not going to magically solve all of Disney's problems. If it were that simple, Dinosaur would have been the answer.

Its possible that using 100% 3d is the better choice, but it remains a small piece of a bigger problem.


NOTE: Edited for the grammer and spelling errors I managed to catch 4 days after posting...

 

[raidermatt]

Isn't Pixar starting a traditional animation department?

Pixar doing some 2d was reported on Aint it Cool awhile back, but I don't remember seeing it confirmed.

Anyone?

 

[BRERALEX]

yeah, it was reported on aintitcool but never confirmed.

 

[YoHo]

Haven't read the thread, but I get the gist oh what the topic is.

My only comment right now is that since Dinosaur didn't learn em, I hope DW's new Shark picture does. That looks like a bad bad movie and I hope it's numbers show just how little the medium has to do with success.


I stand by the statements of a former poster that intimated that Movies are fundimentally not a big buisness industry. They are most successful as a cottage industry where creators can lavish attention on the work. 2D animation is failing, because it is being driven on an assembly line.

Mr. Pirate's assertion that Brother Bear is a "Perfect Disney Film" is ludicrous. It's an adequate Disney film and it made adequate money. It was somewhat formulaic and wasn't as pulled together as the best movies are.

Pixar lavishes attention on its films. Disney does not. DW made a string of poorly premised 2D films and declared it's a dead art form.

Someday, someone with the time and resources will make a 2D film that succeeeds. When that happens, I'm sure everyone will be quick to point to the fickle audience rather then to their own creative bankruptcy.

 

[YoHo]

The problem with using Dreamwork's Animated films as an example is that with the exception of Prince of Egypt, they were unmitigated disasters. There are those that liked them and truth be told, there is something to like about them, but nobody would confuse them with something approaching the quality of Little Mermaid, Aladdin, BatB or Lion King. They're more along the lines of Oliver and Company in terms of relative quality.


Saying a bunch of Mediocre 2D films didn't make money therefore 2D films can't make money is disengenuous at best.

The only film that we've seen on the 3D front that is even comparbly bad is Dinosaur and well gee, it stunk up the joint didn't it?


Bad films are bad films. Mediocre films are mediocre. Don't blame the public for being fickle.


And yeah, sometime a mediocre film with a good gimick and premise will succeed. That's not a buisnessplan though.

 

[raidermatt]

And, when HE says that 2-D is pretty much dead, then I put alot of weight in that because of his track record with The Little Mermaid, et al.

Ok, that has some weight... though given that most of DW's 2d work has fallen well short of even Disney's muted 2d success, it would appear he might not be the ultimate authority.

HE is failing at 2d, and has created a successful franchise in 3d... what else is he supposed to say? "I'm shifting DW completely to 3d because I lack the ability to create 2d movies anybody wants to see, and I'm riding the Shrek gravy train..."

This is not true at all because the big difference now is that a strong and economically viable competing animation technology is displacing 2-D animation. During whatever "long ago" you are referring to, that wasn't the case. Sure, 2-D had dry spells but it never really had a viable alternative (unless you claymation-heads start spouting lies again...).

Your point had nothing to do with viable alternatives. You simply said if 2d was economically viable, somebody else would pick it up.

That's the point I (and Greg earlier) addressed, and the evidence doesn't back it up.

Yes, 3d is displacing 2d, and that is mainly due to one single reason... the premier storytellers in the industry are at Pixar, and they are using 3d.

Once again, most of Disney's problems are related to the quality of their films, not the tool they used to make them.

Do you at least agree with that?