[Young_Donald]

Animation style has nothing to do with success or failure
Eisner is sure that Pixar is making more money because of computer animation and that Disney is failing because of 2d animation, but this is a stupid theory
If you look at Pixar movies they're more Disney's than Pixar's as they have all that qualities from the Disney Masterpieces of the past
Dinosaurs is CG and yet it was a failure
Atlantis would have sucked even if it were CG
People doesn't give a **** about animation style as long as the story, the characters and the plot is good
After all Spirited Away is 2d and won an Oscar and did great at the box office and no one complained that it wasn't CG
What people like about A Bug's Life and Finding Nemo is the story, the gags, the funny characters not the 3D animation
We already know what Disney can do with CG (look at Dinosaurs) and we know that unless the stories and ideas improve their CG animated features will all fail despite animation style
Chicken Run used a different animation style than CG and so Princes and Princesses yet they were both successes
People is not that stupid like Eisner believes, they want good stories and a good story is a good story and 2d, CG,
stop-motion, UPA can’t change this
CG is just a possible animation, neither the standars nor the best
It has its pros (such as realism) and many cons (coldness, fakeness feeling,)
Every animation style has its pros and cons and that’s why they all need to exist and be utilized
And by the way Pixar's ceo thinks the same thing i.e. CG is not the future it's just another animation style, 2d animation should live forever and you can't replace a good story with CG animation and that was the problem with last Disney features: lack of ideas, lack of intriguing characters and poor plotlines

Here's a wonderful article about this topic and why Disney CG animated movies will be a complete failure

Why Pixar's films are more "Disney" than Disney's...
By Merlin Jones

Colorful characters with unique abilities. Indelible personalities with
unusual perspectives and expressive attitudes. Inventive visual comedy.
Unreal and exaggerated situations made accessible and recognizable. A
simple, visual plot hook. Caricature. A sense of humor and heart. A
childlike discovery of wonder. Timeless truths of humanity and myth. The
innocent drama of desire, determination, and choice. Romance. Terrors tamed,
demons conquered. A lighthearted outlook on life and living. The love of
laughter and music. A sincere suspension of disbelief. The common man
triumphs. A cartoonist's observation of a crazy world's details. The
ultimate eye candy. The odd notions of an artist's imagination. The
whimsical, fanciful and dreamlike brought to an illusion of life. An
impossible perspective made real.
The traditional virtues of the Walt Disney film are familiar to children of
all ages. But today, those very same attributes are far more likely to be
found in the latest Pixar release.
Why have Pixar's pixies been so fabulously successful with these proven
elements while Disney's most recent features have fallen flat?

Is it the novelty of computer graphics animation or the illusion of
"three-dimensional" imagery that makes the difference? Has hand-drawn art
become irrelevant in an age of technology? Has the audience lost its love
for cartoons?
Disney management obviously thinks so, and that is...ridiculous.

Story Land
Cartoon or computer, there is no replacement for a good story.
The key to any successful film hinges on memorable characters, relatable
themes and an engaging, well told tale with plenty of surprises. But an
animated film has its own set of needs. The story must be primarily visual
in nature. It must take you places that the camera can't, an increasingly
rare frontier in the digital age.

A successful film story is alchemy of course. Hard to plan...like catching
lightning in a bottle. Easy to say, hard to achieve.
And yet...the consistency by which Pixar's creatives are able to meet the
goal, while Disney's miss the target in recent years, gives one pause. The
Doctor's analysis: there are underlying differences in approach and taste at
work here.

The simple premise: Pixar is making "Disney" movies, while Disney is not.

Disney has tried to redefine their work, abandoning the world of the
traditional cartoon, while Pixar has embraced and enhanced it. Pixar's films
evoke a childlike, dreamlike, interpretive perspective while Disney's
increasingly come from a more literal viewpoint.
Contrary to popular executive opinion, Pixar's wild success proves audiences
still want a Walt Disney-style movie that speaks happily from the inner
child, infused with a glorious joie-de-vivre, humor, and caricature (Toy
Story, Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo).
Disney audiences don't seem to respond to a heavy-handed lecture from a
parental voice, a message laden with political correctness (Pocahontas,
Hunchback, Atlantis), or a self-aware, self-mocking smugness (Hercules,
Emperor's New Groove).
They want honesty and "corn," not cynicism and social engineering. They want
the unbridled invention of the cartoonist, not the stale template of the
creative executive. They want to escape into a timeless, believable
otherworld, not be pummeled with the politics of our own.
Where they once wanted Disney, they now want Pixar.
This is not a war of computer vs. pencil, but a battle of points-of-view.

Last Night in the Nursery

Audiences still want to believe in the fantasy, in the triumph of eternal
truths, as they did when Disney produced massive hits like The Little
Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King.

These "modern classics" were chips off the old Disney block: fanciful fairy
tales or animal fables filled with impossibilities, allegory, fun and
wonder. Made more contemporary through the dressing of modern theatre and
humor, they were still first and foremost "cartoons."

But the nature of Disney storytelling changed abruptly after The Lion King,
and the studio's fortunes along with it.

Clearly, it was a definite choice of management to change direction in the
types of stories that would define "Disney." Beginning with Pocahontas,
Disney's animation unit left Neverland for the world of the "sophisticated,"
serious, strident, and sassy. These new works would be closer to animated
children's theatre or live-action films than cartoons at heart. The intent:
to be more "grown up", diverse, "relevant."

Meanwhile, Pixar came on the scene with immediate success. Not unlike modern
Silly Symphonies, Pixar's toys, bugs, and monsters came to life in a
playful, fanciful manner. Despite the computers (and a dose of modern
psycho-analysis), these were old fashioned cartoons at heart.
The Pixar creative braintrust (John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Joe Ranft,
Brad Bird, et al.) are all graduates of the Cal Arts Character Animation
Program and are all career animation storytellers. The company is run from
that perspective, just as Disney was in the Golden Age. At Pixar,
cartoonists are King.
The work of Walt Disney, the Nine Old Men and their immediate successors was
dominated by personality humor, expressive acting and inventive visual
situations. The movements of their characters were honed from sharp-eyed
observation, a sense of humor and humanity. We recognized traits and
mannerisms in those characters and laughed and cried and held them dear.
Each character was different and unique. The men behind those stories, such
as Bill Peet, Joe Grant and Dan DaGradi, were cartoonist storymen, different
in their skills from the acting based animators, but sharing the same
youthful and imaginative worldview. Together with Walt, they created what we
all think of as the Disney movie.

When Walt ventured into live-action, cartoon invention followed. Wildly
inventive visual storytelling is found in such pictures as Mary Poppins,
Swiss Family Robinson and Absent-Minded Professor. These were also films
influenced heavily by cartoonists... that's what Disney was all about.
But down in Burbank, literalists now rule the roost. Since the early '90s
(following The Lion King), the Disney story directives have mostly come down
through a system of "creative" executives, few of whom have an animation
background or seem to particularly like cartoons. These tastemakers come
from live-action, theatre, marketing, technology, MBA programs-but seldom
animation. Here characters look and act the same and stories are derived
from templates. Messaging is stressed over entertainment values.

Show Don't Tell

Some say it's just an emphasis on "script, script, script" that makes the
difference. While a solid story structure is essential, the method for
arriving at the final cartoon story is nowhere near as simple as a "locked
screenplay."
In the world of animation, a delicate balance of elements must be brewed
together to achieve success, as the storyboard reinterprets verbal concepts
into the visual.
An art-centered piece must by nature be interpretive, not realistic. The
animator's oeuvre is observation and caricature and exaggerated personality
quirks, the unreal and anthropomorphic. If it can be done in live-action,
why animate it?
This seemingly irrelevant afterthought-visual vs. verbal storytelling-is the
prime difference between animation narrative form and live-action. In live
filming, a storyboard is largely used just to "stage" the action. In
animation, a storyboard invents the action itself. Cartoon business can't be
scripted. The storyboard is not a follow-up process, but the essence of
creation.

The visual invention, observation, and satire that drives a cartoon is not
just acting business and gags, and can't be peppered on top of a "straight"
script like special effects. These elements are intrinsic to the very
conception of a successful cartoon. Pantomime film moments like Pink
Elephants on Parade, a deer on ice, and mice building dresses (the studio
gravy with audiences), don't read well in script form. Without visual
storytellers at the helm, the development of ideas is limited to those that
can be easily visualized or communicated through words.
Not every story is good for animation. It must have a certain visual conceit
in its very core to make an animation concept ideal (a girl must transform
Beast back into a Prince, a boy gets three wishes from a Genie).
But not everyone thinks in visual terms. Screenwriters generally specialize
in dialogue and dramatic interaction. How can they craft a script that will
have dogs falling in love while eating spaghetti and pull it off? They don't
as easily see it in their mind's eye, or don't know how to execute it. Not
their fault, simply a different skill.
It's no accident that the executive mantra is that animators make bad
storytellers. Executives who can't "visualize" have no patience for
storyboards or reels.
But then board artists simply illustrate a script as instructed, vision
fades. The work becomes flat and literal. More dialogue must be added to
make it interesting.
Animators have been accused by critics of giving too much prominence to
their specialty-sequential storytelling. Rather than paying attention to
structure, character arc, and thematic subtext, they create clever character
studies and gag material via self-contained entertainment sequences. Indeed,
plot thrust and story structure suffered in the years after Walt's death (in
such films as The Fox and the Hound, The Rescuers and Robin Hood) for this
very reason.
So, in the late '80s and early '90s, it was decided that Hollywood writers
and story structure experts were needed to help Disney artists write the
stories.

Writers were initially brought in to support-not supplant-the traditional
storyboarding process. And it helped immensely to overcome the "sequential
syndrome." Outsiders brought structure and arc to the proceedings and
infused some fresh ideas. But as the writers began to dominate the
cartoonists, this happy balance (evident in such pictures as Beauty and the
Beast) began to shift.
Pixar's guys, on the other hand, are not literal writers (though they do
write); they are visual storytellers/cartoonists in their every chromosome.
If you look at Finding Nemo, it really is built much like The Aristocats,
The Jungle Book and other animator-driven films in that it has a rather
skimpy narrative fleshed out through entertaining personality sequences.
There is more subtext, character arc, and drive than those films had...but
the film's charm is rooted in personality development and visual invention.
Oh, sure, the new CGI medium is a stunner, but more importantly, Pixar's
content is right from a cartoonist's heart. Whimsical, clever, observant,
sincere...cartoons-like the old, profitable Disney films used to be.

Unsung Hero

In Walt's day, fresh perspectives, fine artists and expansive thinkers were
often sought to raise the cartoonist profile and enrich the works with new
ideas. But their fine art was always filtered through a cartoonist's eye
(with Walt a cartoonist and big-kid himself, it couldn't be otherwise).
"Disney" became a caricature of fine art and high modernist design... a
populist vision of art for the masses. But the bread-and-butter of these
films was always pure "corn" and "heart", not intellectualism.

Sometimes an outsider gets this and the collaboration becomes electric. Hot
off the cartoonish musical remake of Little Shop of Horrors, Howard Ashman
really liked campy humor and Disney movies and emotional resonance. As
lyricist and co-producer of The Little Mermaid, Aladdin and Beauty and the
Beast, he was able to use his skills to paint a contemporary slant on the
traditional Disney fairy tale without breaking the mold.

Howard understood this was all about cartoons.
While he had a deeper sense of subtext that the traditional Disney
storyteller, Howard knew it was simplicity, exaggeration and visual
invention that made things work in the medium. He wanted household objects
to sing and dance. His Broadway stylings were to color and inform the medium
in new ways-to stretch the Disney genre, not rebuke it. He embraced the past
and projected it into the future.
That's why these three films feel like cartoons, like Disney classics, not
just proscenium stage shows (like the later Pocahontas or Hunchback, made
after his untimely death). Howard backed the cartoonist storymen/directors
and the results were wonderful.
It was A Whole New World for Disney animation then, and the hits were sure
to keep coming.
But there was a flaw in the plan...Disney stopped making Disney movies.

The Long Slide

A "gold rush" of new Feature Animation managers, fresh to the medium,
descended on the revitalized animation studio. They decided it was the
theatre-style elements of Mermaid, Beauty and Aladdin that had made this
batch of films more popular. Most of the executives had been caught
off-guard with Mermaid's success. They had thought the fairy tale and the
Disney genre film was dead. There had to be some other reason this had
worked-thus, animation was deemed the New Broadway!

Consequently, cartoonist storytellers fell from grace as their work was
increasingly given over to management-friendly outsiders. Theatre stage
managers became producers... literature majors and MBA's became creative
executives. Though novices in the medium, they were
suddenly-Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo!-the experts on animation and audiences.
Experience or love for the form no longer mattered so much.
A glass-ceiling developed with animation folk in decidedly second class
status. Unlike Howard Ashman, many of the newcomers had little enthusiasm
for cartoons or the Disney tradition, and tried to remake the business in
their own image. Pocahontas and Hunchback (and the development project Aida,
initially targeted for animation) seemed more appropriate for the stage than
for the cartoon screen. Racism, intolerance, genocide, and sexual repression
became appropriate subtext for this new breed of charming children's musical
films.

If anyone wanted a new Dumbo, they would be out-of-luck.
Starting with the very stagy Pocahontas, the box-office grosses subsequently
declined with each picture, even as Pixar came on the scene and made a
fortune taking the mantle of the Disney-style heartwarming, funny, whimsical
cartoon.
To keep favor at Disney, many artists began to parrot the company line about
marketing priorities, statistics, and growing/redefining the brand.
Development drifted further from the (now deemed embarrassing by management)
cartoonist instinct in hopes of making animation "relevant" to teen movie
goers (something it had rarely, if ever, been-even in successful times).
Some directors had dreams of live-action success and hit the seminar circuit
to study the latest Hollywood trends and formulas.

The childish sense of fun and wonder was lost.

Since the attempt to make the slate more "tasteful and intellectual" failed
to draw a crowd, the spurned executives decided audiences didn't know any
better. Under pressure to change formulas, they began to drift from their
own preference for musical theatre into unknown waters for all. The
development slate became increasingly ecclectic and difficult to define.
Audiences wanted more Mermaid-classic Disney-style fairy tales and animal
fables with modern punch. But the company stubbornly refused to make them
(except as cheap, formula franchise-extension TV specials or videos,
reflecting the disdain executives had for traditional Disney material).
From now on it was decreed by execs that Disney animation was "made for
people who shop at Wal-Mart" and that "no one can tell the difference
anyway" (concerning artistic integrity or quality). The only thing
executives still cared about was putting the right political subtext into
these oft-watched learning tools (particularly in the direct-to-video
sequels, which abandoned the cartoonist perspective entirely, and so bear
little resemblance to their forebears in tone, texture, humor, or
substance).

Storytelling emphasis was now geared to "marketing-for-mommies." Assuming
that video and multiplex ticket sales were driven by mom's choices instead
of child's interests, stories were increasingly slanted to a parental point
of view-not unlike an educational children's library book. Rock acts from
Mom's Junior High School days were trotted out to compose the soundtracks.
The videos began to sell as convenient babysitters, validating this
approach, but ultimately weakening the once-boutique Disney animated
feature.

They tried everything but making a Disney cartoon. This POV was verboten as
"retro."

And yet, Pixar was appealing to all ages for the very reasons Disney was
trying to avoid. Through their mirth and merriment and earnestness, Pixar's
films have long-surpassed Disney's own take at the box-office.
A vestige of the old Disney-style cartoon thinking survived away from the
politics in the recently closed Florida Studio. Under the guidance of
longtime cartoonist storyman Chris Sanders (Mulan, Lilo and Stitch), magic
and money were minted.
Still, the message was not received by Disney management.

Clone Wars

There have always been talented visual storytellers at Disney but, except in
rare cases, they have not had the power needed to survive the system in
recent years.
At Disney, The System is King; Management Theory is tantamount. Those who
can't play the game or obey the rules can't survive. Cartoonist storytellers
or directors with unbridled passion or opinion are quickly labeled too
"difficult" to handle in a system now geared to the manager, not the talent.
At Pixar, these types of talents have been praised and encouraged to shine.
The very nature of the outside contract (and Steve Jobs) created a firewall
that protected the Pixar talents from Disney's micromanagers. Outside
Burbank, they were allowed their unusual methods of developing stories and
cartoonist tastes.
Disney, unable to control Pixar's development process, had to develop
respect for the same sorts of creative wild horses that would have been
"broken" internally.
If Disney owned Pixar, those films surely would have taken the same tone as
the in-house animated productions. Disney's CGI project Dinosaur is a good
example of what the Studio's computer animation-sans Pixar-would be like. In
terms of storytelling, it feels just like all those other post-Lion King
duds.
So Michael's desire to find the "clones of John Lasseter" can't possibly
succeed under the current scenario, as the Disney executives will eat them
for breakfast. Pixar-type films can't be made by committee.

By severely curtailing in-house animation operations, Eisner and his
managers have put all their eggs in the outsourcing basket. They seem to
believe that simply making movies by computer will solve all their problems.
That a script reworked by the right writers will make the difference. That
cartoonists aren't necessary to the process.
But the only "clones' empowered to make these films will be more executive
apparatchiks.
Prediction: These films will be "emotional." They will be "relevant," They
will imitate Shrek's sarcasm. They will have wall-to-wall smartass dialogue.
They will be loudly marketed. They will be sequels and remakes and franchise
extensions. They will be "3-D."
But they won't be Pixar. They won't be cartoons.

They won't be Disney.

And the audience will know.

[bumble]

Oh my, that was long! lol, and very interesting. thanks :) and welcome to DC!

[Young_Donald]

Originally Posted by bumble73

Oh my, that was long! lol, and very interesting. thanks :) and welcome to DC!

Thanks for the welcome

Let's think about it, Eisner, because of box office failure of Disney last animated features, decided to change the only working thing: drawings and animation

According to Eisner 2D is dead and CG animation will bring back Disney at the top.
So it must mean that what people didn't like about last Disney Animated Features was the graphic, the colours, the drawings, the animation while they enjoyed the storylines, the plots, the gags and the characters (the things for wich Eisner has not planned any change)
Guess what? It's all the opposite

People didn't like the stories and the characters but they thought it was a pity because of wonderful animation
Even on usenet newsgroups fans of anime and Miyazaki that usually dislike Disney animated features said for example that Treasure Planet was boring and bad but they aknowledge that the graphic/animation was super and it was worth the teather ticket
I don't know what kind of expensive and useless surveys they take at the Disney but the truth is not that people love Disney stories and hate 2d animation, the truth is that people prefer 2d animation over CG but disliked the the plots, the gags, the characters and the stories on the last Disney's

Would a 2d animated "Finding Nemo" be a success? Of Course
Would a CG animated "Atlantis" be more successful? Of Course NOT

Last Eisner decision to dismiss completely 2d animation is the most foolish and disregard of the facts and fans opinion idea a ceo can have and will be the Disney death blow

1) because people want 2d animation from Disney
2) because Disney can compete with Pixar only with 2d and this is the only reason why people went and see last Disney movies, but if both are CG people will always choose Pixar
3) because the only thing that really was the reason for the Disney failure (the stories and characters) won't change so we will have lame, boring bad CG features (like the unwatchable Dinosaurs) against Disney Style, funny and brilliant Pixar movies and no 2D to justify a Disney animated feature vision
Not to mention the fired, unemployed legendary animators

No, it was a very bad idea that no one liked, not even CG fans and as I said the death blow at Walt Disney Company

Chicken Little from the first images I've seen will be terrible and not only the storyline seems bad (modern no-brain lapsticks) but the animation sucks compared to Pixar
Disney is the best at 2D animation while they're not good at CG animation and this is another reason why this move, this decision is foolish and detrimental

Dany

[JM0318]

I agree with you and welcome to DC... ºoºJudy

[Cavey]

Originally Posted by MrDisneyfan1

We'll yet it happened twice in one day. Mr. Walt Disney rolled over. First someone said there should be a month at Disney World for adults only...no kids, and now this.

Folks,
I'm suprised no one has challenged the credibility of any of these ridiculous rumors!

Someone came onto this board and said they heard from someone overseas that Disney isn't making traditional cartoons. Where are the Disney press releases, news reports,websites, and quotes confirming any of this?

Come on! Think about it. Disney has built it's empire on animated features. Even if they did move towards more computer animation, they are not going to abandon the proven venue that has made them what they are. Sure Treasure Island flopped, but Disney has always had box office flops. That's part of the game. AND even a movie that doesn't do so well in theaters has years of revenue ahead with DVD's and merchandising. Alice in Wonderland was a failure at the box office. But several decades later it's made Disney millions in profits.

As for a month at WDW for only adults...PUH-LEASE!!!! Families are the bread and butter of WDW. Besides being philosophically incompatible with Disney's purpose, it doesn't make business sense. Disney would be out of their minds to cut that much revenue to cater to a specific group. Besides greatly reduced spending in the parks, the fall out from Disney fans would hurt them financially.

What would happen to WDW if the "Smith's" from Mentone, AL packed up their family of five and uninformed of "Adult Month" drove to WDW for a week? They'd NEVER go back. Now multiply that by 6,000-10,000 families in a single day!

Or think about it from this perspective, would Disney REALLY turn away tens of millions of dollars in family revenue and send their customers to Universal Studios for a month in order to serve adults only?!?!?!

Long story short. Until I hear it from the Mouse, it's rumor, speculation, and hearsay, and NOT worth paying attention to. Now, if someone can provide a link to verify either rumor. I'll eat my words.

[Young_Donald]

Originally Posted by caver_jeffery

Folks,
I'm suprised no one has challenged the credibility of any of these ridiculous rumors!

Someone came onto this board and said they heard from someone overseas that Disney isn't making traditional cartoons. Where are the Disney press releases, news reports,websites, and quotes confirming any of this?

Come on! Think about it. Disney has built it's empire on animated features. Even if they did move towards more computer animation, they are not going to abandon the proven venue that has made them what they are. Sure Treasure Island flopped, but Disney has always had box office flops. That's part of the game. AND even a movie that doesn't do so well in theaters has years of revenue ahead with DVD's and merchandising. Alice in Wonderland was a failure at the box office. But several decades later it's made Disney millions in profits.

It's all true unfortunately
Eisner declared "2D traditional animation is dead like black and white is" and he fired 80% of all animators and sold all the toold; including cells, desks, pencils, and so on
The Orlando department is now closed, and this has not much to do with flops since "Brothers Bears" did good at the box office and so Lilo and Stitch, and this is the proof that when the animators are free to work withoout being harrased by superiors with their rewritings and las minute changes and they're free to work at the creative process they can still come up with pretty good movies
You're right, Disney has built its empire on animation features, but this is not Disney anymore, it just has the name but nothing is left from the Disney we knew
And we should have realized so far that Eisner doesn't understand a yota about animation and that the whole marketing surveys department doesn't know anything about what Disney fans really want, if you hadn't noticed yet they're just having a look at what movies have done good at the box office and they are ripping off that movies formula
They saw Shrek was doing very good and they thought "let's copy this formula: CG and parody of fairy tales" and now we'll have "Chicken Little" and "Don Qichotte" and "Rapunzel" with pop culture cynism and bathroom jokes
But I think sooner or later viewers wil wake up and get tired of those cheap rip-off movies based on unoriginal marketing formulas
People love 2D animation, they love the warmth of hand-drawn animation, the brilliant color and the rounded lines and the cartoonesque/painting look; these are things that CG can't and will never reproduce it will always be realistic, dry and angular
Unfortunately Eisner just thinks that the failure of the poor plot, characters and storyline of movies like Atlantis and Treasure Planet are to be blamed on 2D animation and that these lame movies would have bombed if they're were CG
Eisner is that stupid that is last brilliant idea is to render all masterpieces in 3D
There are already sketches of old Donald 's short in 3D and even of Bambi and Little Mermaid 3D
Of course they sucks !!
Someone has to stop this folly man before he destroys everything Walt created
Another reason why it's true that according to Disney "hand-drawn animation is dead" is that all projects will 2009 are computer graphic movies
I thought we would have seen some hand-drawn animation on sequels at least but I heard Eisner wants them on CG too
It's the same with 3D playstation game
Playstation keeps creating 3D sickening games even when 3D would not be necessary and yet lot of fans are complaining about the lack of old good funny 2D platforms ala Sonic or Mario Bros or Zelza
And it seems too that many people are already tired of CG movies and they would like to see some warm hand-drawn animation
Proof of this for example is the Oscar Spirited Away won, and success of Emperors New Groove and Lilo&Stitch
But also the fact that Three Mosketeers was a success and very enjoyed by both Disney and Disney fans and it hasn't been released at the theater in order to not disprove Eisner stupid theory that hand-drawn animation is dead and that people want to see only CG animation
Dreamworks and Blue Sky too are only doing Computer Graphic Animated movies
And while Playstation and Sega creates only 3D games, while Disney kill its hand-drawn animation and all other animation producers create only 3D movies people is looking for lot of old cartoon, lot of anime and lot of good old Amiga and SNES 2D games
So, is people fond of 3D and CG? Yeahh, right...on their dreams

Bur Disney is really killing himself this time and if this "2D-is-dead" idiocy doesn't change soon there will not be a Disney anymore
They have no experience on CG, people complain about Eisner decision and they know where to go for a good CG movie: Pixar
Chicken Little, whose trailers and sketches have been reviewed by animation and CG expert, is horrible
It's CG is 100 times worst than Toy Story 1 and 20.000 times worst than Finding Nemo
The story too seems pretty lame and the characters are unsympathetic
Have a look at the animation movis to come: they are all lame and boring
Pixar is already worsening and if A bugs Life and Monsters are masterpieces The Incredibles seems less attractive, espcially because CG is not adequate for human rendering, they seem too fake and this is one of the many cons of CG and that's one of the tons of reason why it can't become the only animation style
But we have Robots from Blue Sky
This IMHO is pretty lame and boring too, cheap animation and unattractive characters
But we have Shark Tale, bad animation, bad characters and clearly a plagiarized Finding Nemo
Then we will have Rapunzel that will be a rip-off of Shrek boring formulas with all that false and unoriginal cynism
The voices for all the characters in these movies are of famous hollywood actors like De Niro, Jolie, Berry, Brooks, Carey and others
This is pathetic
First of all because not all hollywood stars are suited for cartoons voices and on the other hands because it shows how they have problems attracting audience so that they need famous actors dubbing, pop culture references, lame jokes and pop culture gags and all other obnoxious things
So what we have obtaned is the death of animation and the born of bad animated formulas rip-offs movies that has less magic than a car tire
We have only two chances to see things changing before it's really too late

One is waiting until Eisner leave his ceo chair and hope that maybe the new ceo will be more knowledgeable in animation and will understand the marketing potential of hand-drawn animation, and the flops of these horrible bad CG animated parodies of fairy tales ala shrek will help too

The other is that since the CG is best, hand-drawn is dead (and this doesn't come from fans, audience, kids, children or viewers as they all love hand-drawn animation but from the plagiarization of bad box office formulas) is just a fad bubble it will burst as soon as people get tired of all this bad copy and paste of movies whose bubble has been already bursted
The CG craze is already fading but it wil die soon
Now, the problem is: when someone will declare "CG is dead" will they do the logical move to restore hand-drawn animation studios or they will that stupid to discontinue animationa alltogether

I think we should boycott Disney movies for now, just to let them know that the fans are not happy with the whole "2D is dead" odiocy
I won't go and see Chicken Little for sure, I don't want Eisner to think that his ridicolous theory has some kind of value by contributing to making this cheap CG movies a success

I think we can support Roy Disney meanwhile in his battle to save Disney hand-drawn animation
Not only Roy is supported by fired and unemployed animators but by working on CG projects animators too
I don't know if Roy is dishonest or if he is so just interested in easy money and bad quality as Eisner but one thing for sure: he does know what good animation is
Disney Trasures, Destino and Fantasia 200 are all projects are now reality thanks to him ans he has showed to understand and be faithful about Walt visions
Having all Goofy shorts in one set is just enough to thank Roy
And again, the fact that many twenty century children, kids, and grown-ups are enjoying these shorts everyday (from Amazon and other shop online review) clearly show that 2D is not dead but that clearly Eisner mind is

and here's a official press release:
http://www.savedisney.com/news/se/wdfa_closure.asp

Daniel

[tinkerbell]

the only think I feel I can say for sure ..of course this being my opinion only is that Young_Donald is right about Eisner's mind being dead *grin*

[roxie]

I would have to disagree that Finding Nemo and Toy Story are pathetic and boring. I thoroughly enjoyed both. And I think The Incredibles looks very appealing. But I also loved Lion King and Aladdin (and many more.) With Aladdin coming out this week, I thought how sad it would be if Disney stopped these types of movies. btw...stars doing voices...I can't imagine Genie with anyone else's voice BUT Robin Williams!
I would hate to think that 2D is dead at Disney - I would like to think they could do both.

[Young_Donald]

Originally Posted by aecox

I would have to disagree that Finding Nemo and Toy Story are pathetic and boring.

Who told they're pathetic and boring?
Pixar rules !!
But the point is that the reason is just the story and the plot and not the animation stye
No one ever said "I would have liked Atlantis if it were CG" as well as no one ever said "I would have not liked Finding Nemo is it were hand-drawn animation"
People don't give a yota abou animation style, they want good and original stories and this is what Pixar is giving them
The success of Spirited Away is the proof of how people love hand-drawn animation when the story is appealing and the characters are attractive
I agree with you that both CG and hand-drawn are entitled to exist and variety is better than monostyle, and obeva all they need to belong to ther respective long life artists, i.e. Pixar is very good at CG and would probably sucks with hand-drawn animation while Disney is wonderful at hand-drawn animation and sucks at CG animation
We don't need the same produced doing both, Disney hand-drawn and Pixar CG each with its talen that's how it should be

[roxie]

Originally Posted by Young_Donald

It's CG is 100 times worst than Toy Story 1 and 20.000 times worst than Finding Nemo
The story too seems pretty lame and the characters are unsympathetic
Have a look at the animation movis to come: they are all lame and boring
Pixar is already worsening and if A bugs Life and Monsters are masterpieces The Incredibles seems less attractive, espcially because CG is not adequate for human rendering, they seem too fake and this is one of the many cons of CG and that's one of the tons of reason why it can't become the only animation style

After re-reading, I'm sorry. I did misread the part about Toy Story.

But...you did say that Pixar is worsening, not that it rules!

And I agree about Atlantis - boring. But I also disagree, too. I think the animation style in Atlantis and Home on the Range is way below Disney standards. People do care about style. I do.

[roxie]

BTW Young Donald....thank you for all of your information.

[Young_Donald]

Originally Posted by aecox

After re-reading, I'm sorry. I did misread the part about Toy Story.

But...you did say that Pixar is worsening, not that it rules!

Well, that because I think IMHO that their new project (Incredibles and Cars) are less good than their previous ones
For one thing humans are not very good on CG, they look like plastic glassic dead puppets and humanized cars in CG are not that attractive, too dead, as you have unanimated metal objects rendered with a dry animation as CG is
Not that good IMHO

And I agree about Atlantis - boring. But I also disagree, too. I think the animation style in Atlantis and Home on the Range is way below Disney standards. People do care about style. I do.

Both Antlantis and Home on the Range utilized a UPA style animation
While this is cheaper and seems to be less good and too much stilized and low standard, it is actually an interesting style that it's utilized in order to recreate a special comic-book effect
Interesting old Disney works that use this style are for example Paul Bunyan, How To Ride an Horse, Melody, Pigs is Pigs, Goliath II, It's Tough to Be A Bird, Goofy's Aquamania and some late Donald Duck cartoons
It's can be refreshing and interesting if used in the right context and with a good story

BTW Young Donald....thank you for all of your information.

You're welcome

[Cavey]

Originally Posted by djmartin999

BIG NEWS reported in the Sunday Express (national paper) in the UK - according to a film review, Home On The Range is supposedly the LAST animated 2D film Disney will EVER make!!!!!

Just to make my earlier point about rumors, the new Aladdin DVD advertises a 2D Winnie the Pooh film for theater release in February 2005.

[Young_Donald]

Originally Posted by caver_jeffery

Just to make my earlier point about rumors, the new Aladdin DVD advertises a 2D Winnie the Pooh film for theater release in February 2005.

Yes, but that's different
The Orlando Animated Features Studio has been closed
Nevertheless the Disney Television Animation Studio is still working
Orlando Florida Animation Features Studio created Roger Rabbits Shorts, Mulan, Lilo&Stitch, Brother Bears and Home on the Range
Walt Disney Television Animation Studio created Duck Tales: the movie, Duck Tales: the series, Gummy Bears, Tale Spin, Rescue Rangers and others
The Burbank studio created Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Lion King, Atlantis, Emperor's New Groove, Treasue Planet and others

So, this how things are going to work
The Orlando has been closed and all the materials have been sold
The Burbank studio discontinued 2D animation and now there only CG animated features projects till 2010
The Disney Television Animation Studio is still working and we will see hnd-drawn animation again only on TV and sequels, thus explained hand-drawn winnie the pooh in 2005
Unfortunately 50% of sequels and Disney series and series/features will be CG
We'll have: "Mickey: Twice Upon a Christmas" with CG donald, goofy and mickey, Dumbo II in CG and Snow White II in CG

Our only hope is to support Roy Disney, to keep an eye on the new ceo chosing so has to be sure that he won't be Iger, and to be sure that the new ceo will understand the potential of hand-drawn animation, that will change the whole board, that will fire all execs and that will come back to storyboards giving decisional power to animators instead on relying on screenplayes from screenwriters
He would also have to find an assistant to control the creative or the business leadership of the company, but he should have to take both as Eisner did
This is the only way in which within few years we can see the hand-drawn animation coming back, the wonderful storyboard mediated stories we once loved from Disney that now are only coming from Pixar and a return to the magic of the past by giving powers to the creative minds of the animators are getting rid of all the dry management of screenwriters and executives

[Young_Donald]

By the way Caver, if you need press releases, newspapers articles and websites confirming this, you can find everything you need in these pages:

http://www.savedisney.com/news/se/killing_animation.asp
and
http://www.savedisney.com/news/se/wdfa_closure.asp

Please, read every articles it's in there
It's not only the ufficial material you are looking for, but it also explain why we reached this point, why this "2D is dead" is just a fad, what audience want really to see and Disney has been denying to them, and what we all can do to bring back hand-drawn animation when a CEO will be elected