The Demise of 2D Animation. [Archive] - Don Bluth Animation Forum

Alexandra Poston

03-07-2009, 08:30 AM

Agreed!

I believe the difference between 2D and CG animation should be looked at as simply a difference in media - like using graphite as apposed to charcoal. But it seems that people are so enchanted by the new sparkle of CG animation, that it's taken the limelight. I'm guessing this novelty will wear off soon, and hope that people won't have to get their noses up in the air about whether 2D or CG are more or less valid forms of animation.

Another problem I see in the future of 2D animation, is what you called, I think, the 'curse' of America- America's gotten into the mindset that all 2D films, or even all feature length animated films in general, are made for children. I'm glad that Laika, along with many other Henry Selick films, really push the limits with that and still gets an amazing audience. Some studios are getting too afraid to wet their feet in the water to put a dark bite to their films.

People at school are often telling me that there is no future in 2D animation, and if there is, it's perched on the shoulders of the Princess and the Frog. I don't think one movie has to lead the future of a beautiful art. With a good story, any animated film can hit it big. If a well-written 2D animated film was marketed in the correct way, then perhaps people will begin to realize that cartoons aren't just for the kiddies.

Draconis

03-14-2009, 11:21 PM

I definitely agree that 3D animation is just another tool in the artists toolbox and should be treated as such. I remember hearing one of the best quotes from an art teacher saying that a true artist can make a masterpiece using a stick and some dirt in the ground. Just because something has been animated in 3D doesn’t mean that it will automatically be good. I think we’ve already seen more than enough examples of how this is true. I’m so glad to see that people are still keeping 2D alive, the last animated film, “Triplets of Belleville” was exceptional and Japanese animation studios like the venerable studio Ghibli has achieved tremendous success with almost every production being a masterpiece. One film which I’m sorry didn’t make the mainstream here was “Tekkon Kinkreet” which proved 2D animation was still a very powerful medium to tell a story that was sublime and poignant. It's the story about a couple of street orphans surviving a vicious urban jungle. Even if you're not a fan of Japanese animation, you would do yourself a great disservice by not seeing it. It was a triumph in style and execution.

I’m really looking forward to the Princess and the Frog, Disney is doing the right thing in going back to their roots and it was a dire mistake to make the announcement of becoming a fully 3d studio.

takineko

03-15-2009, 10:14 PM

I completly agree.
I think people have been going for CGI in the interest of time and what they consider to be quality. Backgrounds and textures are more realistic, but that doesn't mean the film itself will be quality. I've seen a great deal of poor animating in CG as well. Not sure why, maybe some of the animators are not techncially artists? Movements are not always believable. Dreamworks seems to be improving but Pixar is obviously the best. Anime is becoming more popular among young people all the time; I keep hoping this means someone in Hollywood will take notice and start cranking out quality 2D movies [not nessisarily anime style]. Instead they keep making live-action versions of the popular anime shows. The closest thing I've seen was the show Avatar, which is obviously trying to look like anime, and in some ways actually looks better in terms of higher frame rates, and choriography. There isn't the traditional still frame sliding along with flashing backgrounds either. However, this show's animation was outsourced to Korea. Why can't they teach American animators to do it the way they like, and give us jobs? It's probably the money.

I want to be a 2D character animator.
But I want to continue to live near my family here in Dallas TX.
I have no real training [yet]
And work is getting more and more scarce for animators in that field.
I feel pretty far from my dream.

Don Bluth

03-16-2009, 11:13 AM

Alexandra Poston

03-16-2009, 05:49 PM

and there it is! 2D doesn't have to be a dieing form so long as there are ambitious artists willing to keep it going, and an interesting story that'll tickle an audience. Much like Don, Gary, and John fulfilled their visions of classical animation with Banjo during the end of their careers at Disney, animators should look at that now and realize - it can be done. Ralph Bakshi even said it out right. You can make your own films, you can pursue your dream, so long as you're willing to go out and do it. Guys, we've got pencil, paper, talent, and we've even got Don to help answer our questions. Lets get these reels rollin.

asifaarchive

03-16-2009, 08:09 PM

zanekohler

03-17-2009, 04:28 PM

A lot of good views! This is just a hunch but I feel things are changing in favor of 2d. Maybe not so much in terms of studios vamping up just yet but in mind set. With Kung Fu Panda, some of the scene steeling moments were the 2d sequences from James Baxter. I have heard friends as well as read around about how it would have been neat to see the whole film like that. I also hear a lot of positive chatter about the Princess and the Frog. It seems like the shiny new factor of CG is starting to wear off? It seems like the media has sensationalized the difference between the two as well. Almost seeming to pit them against each other. I don't think that has helped the general public's perception of traditional in the last few years. I think when the dust settles people will be for story first.

I am currently taking classes using Maya and the same principles are being taught as 2d. While everything we do animation wise is mostly on the computer I still feel I could apply 99% of the lessons towards traditional animation. I am learning the principles are so important and look as if they can cross over to any medium.

lavallelee

03-19-2009, 06:58 AM

people will get tired of 3d, if not already

i plan on only animating in 2d, and hopefully have cartoons on tv that are 2d

the real problem i think is 2d cartoons today are all Limited animation

nobody really animates for tv the way looney tunes, vintage disney and don's movies did/does

2d will have a big come back and i hope to be a part of it!

Don Bluth

03-19-2009, 11:57 AM

I think one of the big reasons that CGI animation has predominated in the past few years has to do with the management structure at the studios producing the films. It's a lot easier for a non-animator "creative" producer to change staging, dialogue, character model, etc at the last minute in CGI than it is in hand drawn. With CGI, you just make the change and re-render. With hand drawn, you go back to square one and start over.

If the people calling the shots were animators and knew how to plan their scenes out using storyboards and layouts there would be no need to "parallel park" scenes through endless revision passes. This is going to take a change from the top down though. Perhaps the internet will spur the growth of independent filmmakers who aren't at the mercy of creative supervisors with little or no animation experience.

I agree with your thinking. I imagine that the embracing of 2D once again will have to come from someplace other than the studios; and it will probably be privately funded. Certainly, Disney is rethinking 2D animation. The only drawback I see there is that the Disney Corporation is so structure orientated, because of its stockholders, that it will be difficult to take creative risks. But I'm an optimist, and I believe 2D animation will find its place in the Box Office.

Don Bluth

03-19-2009, 12:03 PM

asifaarchive

03-19-2009, 03:18 PM

I agree with your thinking. I imagine that the embracing of 2D once again will have to come from someplace other than the studios; and it will probably be privately funded. Certainly, Disney is rethinking 2D animation. The only drawback I see there is that the Disney Corporation is so structure orientated, because of its stockholders, that it will be difficult to take creative risks. But I'm an optimist, and I believe 2D animation will find its place in the Box Office.

I believe that the return of hand drawn animation will come not on TV or theaters, but in the medium that is quickly replacing TV and theaters... the internet. Animation will be able to flourish when there is no longer any executive standing between the animator and his audience. That's the way it used to be when Friz Freleng would slip the projectionist at the Alex Theater five bucks to run his cartoons so they could hide in the back and take notes on which gags worked and which ones didn't... and it will be that way again as soon as a working business model for supplying internet content is established.

zanekohler

03-19-2009, 03:57 PM

I believe that the return of hand drawn animation will come not on TV or theaters, but in the medium that is quickly replacing TV and theaters... the internet.

Good point! I think in recent years with home computers, scanners, and some affordable 2d programs artists have home studio's. With the internet it puts the power into the artist's hands to some degree. What still has to be discovered (like you mention) is where to go next after you have a successful animation. How do you bank on it? I think right now if you play your cards right it is a good skipping stone into tv or theater.

The one down thing about all the internet animation is that there is SO much of it. I know cream rises to the top...But I still think it can be hard to get noticed. Irregardless I suppose it is far better than doing nothing.

jeffnevins

03-19-2009, 05:46 PM

I felt the demise in '02 after being laid off from a studio.
No hard feelings. I really enjoyed working there. Even went back to work on an ad a few years ago.

Bay Area 2-D studios have been vanishing for years, but this studio is still going, which is cool.

I applied to L.A. studios a few years, and even took some 3D classes, but there seemed to be insane competition for few jobs.

Thankfully, a good friend created a job, I learned Flash, and have been working indie ever since.

takineko

03-21-2009, 06:36 AM

I understand your desire to become a 2D animator; I've lived with that same desire all my life. I was fortunate enough to make that dream come through. I passionately believe that if you hold the dream in your head, not doubting, it will find its way to your doorstop.
We have created the Don Bluth Animation website for the express purpose in training artistically inclined students in the art of animation. Our spin on this site will be from a traditional (2D) point of view. Perhaps our animation tutorials will help you learn the animation principals you need. I believe many of the CG houses are looking for animators who know those principals, but more importantly, are looking for animators who are entertainers at heart; animators are actors/entertainers. Although the usual approach to the art is through graphics, design and the principals of movement, it is easy to assume that those approaches alone are sufficient. They are not! The real question is, are you an entertainer?

Thank you for that, that was nice of you.
Am I an entertainer? I'd like to think in some ways I am very much that. Sort of an introvert and an extrovert depending on certain situations. I was surprised when I first learned animators have to take acting lessons. It makes great sense, but I never tried to take acting lessons before. I was afraid I would slip into my introverted state instead, but I suppose the lessons would help me to get over that.

I thought for a moment your lessons were going to cost money [which I would pay if I had more]. Your site just keeps growing and getting better!

I don't think we're alone on this forum, I've often heard in many places how people miss seeing new 2D animated movies come out each year. With any luck, someone will catch on up in Hollywood.

N8Dogg5k

03-22-2009, 09:53 AM

I personally don't believe that 2-d animation is "dead." More so just incapacitated or maybe just taking a back seat.

It was stated earlier that the internet may be a good way for animators to get back in touch with their audiences. I would say that I agree. The internet is a "free-form" tool of communication that only grows larger by the day.

Try as most companies may, they cannot seem to be able to harness the internet's seemingly unlimited power. This usually comes down to the whole prospect of how companies try to incorporate websites and attach business models to them.

But the internet is too organic for that. The internet right now is one of those few in a certain way "pure" communication tools that isn't controlled by some guy with a business model.

Granted, I'm not saying that companies are bad, just the people who run them with their narrow minded visions of "what people want to see."

A good example of how a group of entertainers have utilized the internet to this extent is here:

www.brokensaints.com

To this day, Broken Saints remains as one of my all time favorite stories I've ever seen. It just envelopes you from beginning to end with its use of music, colors, characters, etc. etc.

Alexandra Poston

03-22-2009, 08:07 PM

It most frustrates me the system that television cartoon series are run. My storyboarding instructor was expalaining to me that some shows give animators the character sheets and say 'you have five expressions you can use for this character. DO NOT deviate from them.' What a turn off. How can you bring a character to life with five expressions? How do you even appropriately narrate a story that way? Waiting for some good new saturday morning cartoons like Gummy Bears to come back.

johncbeggs

03-24-2009, 03:12 PM

I agree with you Don Bluth
When finding nemo came out it was awesome atleast the visuals were but now in the year 2009 alot of the new 3D movies are repeats and now 3D animated films are just comedies different characters same comedy and.
(wheres the soul the life from what Don Bluth Productions and classic Disney portrayed).

Draconis

03-25-2009, 10:48 PM

I definately agree that the internet is the way to go. I'm a little late in learning flash, but that's the way I'm going to do it. Post stuff on NewGrounds and YouTube.

There's a new animator who's hitting the scene by the name of ToonSmyth who's coming out with some incredible shorts reminiscent of Eric Schwartz from the old Amiga MovieSetter animations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw6BzT1PnbA

jeremyhopkins

03-25-2009, 11:07 PM

I had a chance to talk with John Lasseter at the Annies, thank you asifaarchive, and I feel his heart is in the right place. Hopefully Princess will be a hit but I feel in the long run movie making and distribution is changing too. We will see more internet content but that might affect the television industry more than it does the feature industry - at least in the short term. The biggest problem I find with the industry is the pump and dump mentality. I would rather see a small core group of generalist artists and animators creating consistent short films and marketing them on itunes for a few dollars than big features that would hire on a bunch of people and then lay them off in the down cycle. There is a lot of good people at Disney and I really hope they can keep their jobs if Princess does well.
When I was visiting the hat building Dale Baer joked that there's no celebrity status in being an animator which is humbling and ok but I think appreciation for the hard work that goes into making an animated feature is important. Until the public realizes and appreciates the effort, hand drawn animation might always take a back seat to other forms of entertainment.

johncbeggs

03-26-2009, 12:01 AM

What also gets me mad is the fact that people are bashing the princess and the frog all the time because shes either a slave or too african or not enough african looking.Dont people understand this isnt live action, animators cant replace her halfway through the process. :(

Im just glad to see disney is making another traditionaly animated film! couldn't care anyless what race the character is :)

brandon

03-26-2009, 04:48 PM

While I'm not a Bakshi fan, I agree with the point he made in the panel discussion previously referenced: With the software we have now (ToonBoom, Flash, etc), and computing power better than it's ever been, all it takes are a few animators, some creativity, and some drive. Hole up in your basement/garage with a few fellow animators on weekends, Bluth-Goldman-Pomeroy style, and bring an idea to life. I think small projects are some of the greatest, because you retain lucidity and clarity of vision between a select few, and you're not restrained by a bottom line. 2D is not dead. It is an art form, and will always be appreciated as such. 3D is so wholly different that it is apocryphal to equate the two. No 3D software could ever make anything that looks like the Secret of NIMH, because that's not what it's for. Looking at the Blu Ray restorations of titles like Sleeping Beauty and other Disney classics, I'm hard pressed to believe that animation could ever look any better - All those man-hours and pencils and inks, they created something that I've never seen bested, in any medium, something that will be a masterpiece for eternity. The layouts and vivid scenery, produced with technology we've long since abandoned, are simply staggering. I very much wish Secret of NIMH would hurry up and release to Blu Ray, as well as the rest of the Bluth catalogue. Imagine the Bluthian lighting effects in crisp HD!

Soerl

03-26-2009, 05:36 PM

2D has always impressed me so much more than 3D. I don't know, but when I see finished and polished good traditional animation, it just blows me away. CG is getting too "real" for me these days. What with motion capture, it seems like the entire idea of animation and cartoons has lost it's meaning. There's no magic left, there's no exaggeration, no style. I hope 2D makes a huge return, because I'm just itching to lend a hand in it.

Lauren C

03-28-2009, 10:59 PM

I agree with Soerl, there is something magical about 2D, that just sends a chill down my spine. 3D is great and all, and it does make the process easier, but with 2D, it all has to come from scratch, you have to create everything, it takes a lot of hard work. Plus it just looks so beautiful.

AnimatorX

03-30-2009, 08:27 AM

The demise of 2D has affected me as a professional in many ways. I graduated from CalArts in 1996 and went straight to work for such studios as Turner Feature, Dreamworks, and Sony Pictures. This was just as studios were really starting to make use of CG for such films as THE IRON GIANT.

I welcomed this technology. Most animators did. We thought it would be used mostly for tech stuff, vehicles, and other assorted hard-to-animate annoyances. We didn't think it would take over the way it did. After a while the 2D jobs started drying up, both in television AND feature animation. A lot of us didn't know if we should keep drawing or start learning MAYA.

I eventually started taking Maya classes. ( Anyone who's ever used Maya knows how agonizing that program is. After two years I STILL hadn't mastered it. ) On top of that, the other students were people who had no traditional drawing experience. I realized that in time the job market would be overwhelmed by CG job seekers.

I abandoned my classes and returned to drawing, but by then almost every feature studio was in the process of doing 3D films. They still had storyboard and visual development jobs, but by then you really had to be the cream of the crop and I, having more or less abandoned my drawing for 3D, was rustier than the proverbial nail. I re-dedicated myself to finding a job and eventually found myself back on FAMILY GUY, where I am to this day. ( Technically it's THE CLEVELAND SHOW now )

It took me 5 years to get another animation job. 5 long years. Not just because CG was taking over, but because 2D was the only thing I ever wanted to do. I eat it, breathe it, and drink it. And when it appeared that process would die because of technology, I became really bitter and depressed. I didn't know anything else (I didn't WANT to know anything else)

I nearly gave up on animation completely. Thank God I remembered something a good friend and animation veteran Jim George told me. He said "Creativity is like a candle flame. Once you let that flame go out it's almost impossible to get it back." My own creativity was barely flickering at that point.

I had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into my new job. On The Cleveland show we draw storyboards on CINTIQ's using ToonBoom Storyboard Pro. I thought I'd hate it. I thought nothing would ever take the place of good old fashioned paper, pencils, and markers. But to my own shock, I LOVE digital production of 2D animation. The tools make doing TV animation especially easy. Now I can't imagine NOT doing boards or animation this way.It has actually rekindled my interest in the affordable, streamlined production of animation.

These days I look at 2D as something that will likely be relegated to the internet and YouTube for a while. Today's audience is fickle and is accustomed to over the top HUGENESS when it comes to movies. I have even heard young kids speak of hand-drawn animation as "old fashioned" entertainment for "babies". But I've heard MORE people, both young AND old, ask me when 2D animated films will return. And that's a great thing to hear. I tell them "Hey, I'm writing scripts as fast as I can. So are a lot of my other animator friends."

Which illustrates yet another problem.

Most big studios don't take pitches from actual ANIMATORS these days. Outside of Pixar, I can't think of a studio that is doing an original story pitched by an animator (Even Princess and Frog is just a modern retelling of a well known fairy tale) Studios like to purchase the rights to children's books and turn them into films. Films with recognizable names, and I think that hurts American animated cinema. It took me almost 4 months to arrange a pitch at Sony Animation and once I did, they sat on it for almost 6 months. A year later, when my agent inquired about the pitch, we were told "Sorry, we're only taking pitches from the top 3 agencies in Hollywood."

Well sorry to say, I don't know any animator who's represented by them outside of maybe John Lassater or Brad Bird ( two outstanding filmmakers ) If you're wondering how it fits into the discussion on 2D, I suppose I'm trying to point out that before the 3D "revolution" it was easier for actual animators to run the animation business.

But maybe I'm wrong

Don Bluth

03-31-2009, 11:50 AM

Animator X

I truly appreciate your remarks. Thanks for sharing your animation frustrations. I have felt many of the same things myself. So, Disney has made a good business out of selling animated films to children. In reality, they are marketing their films to the parents with the reassurance that a Disney classic will not frighten the kids, and it will hold their attention. Simply put, 2D was marketed as a baby sitter. The scripts are intentionally written for the 4 to 9 year olds. The only reason the studios are in love with CG is because it will attract the older audience and they will pay more for a ticket. That?s more money at the box office.

I think the feature animation business has almost come full circle since the days of Snow White. If you?ll recall when Snow White was in production, there was a loud outcry from the Hollywood movie moguls that it would be a flop. It was referred to by many in Hollywood?s glamor circles as ?Walt?s folly.? And, there was ridicule, and snickers coming from all sides. Now compare that to today?s mantra, ?CG will make money, but hand-drawn animation will not; it?s for babies.? That?s absurd! The studios will always follow box office hits with sequel after sequel until they have squeezed the last drop of profit from whatever subject the audience will pay to see. The nature of business is to reduce risk while the nature of art is to embrace it. The very word ?Show Business,? is wonderfully paradoxical. If only the two polarized mediums could co-exist in mutual understanding of each other?s needs, how wonderful life could be. Don?t hold your breath on this one.

The success of both show and business is determined by the strength of the script. If 2D gets out of the nursery, it?s the script that will pull it out. I?m sure of that. Pixar will tell you the same thing; their scripts are the key to their success; they have done some very fine work. So, why aren?t we writing better scripts for 2D animation? I don?t know. I?m still thinking about that one.

Where are we are the animation war map? I?m not even tempted to go see a CG animated film. I do anyway because I?m in the business, and I want to stay current with production, but, tell me now , who wants to sit in the theater and watch sarcastic characters ridicule and insult each other with tired old mean-spirited-one-liners and bathroom humor? I sure don?t. Current CG films have a definite undertone of cynicism, whereas Walt?s stories were insightful and his characters charming, giving one a feeling of hope for the human race. Whatever happened to Charming characters with charitable feelings? Maybe they disappeared with charming people. I really hope I?m wrong about all this. Anyway, here?s the point I?m trying to make. I think that we will have a huge struggle in revitalizing 2D, maybe even a painful one, because of the cynical nature of our society; as well as our loss of innocence. Our current animation scripts seem to reflect that loss, but as long as audiences will pay money to see wise-guy-mean-spirited humor, we are stuck. Art reflects life.

Can we put cynicism aside? Yes, I believe we can, but ?How? is always the question? When I was just a boy, I always looked forward to a Disney picture coming to our town. I didn?t know how they were made; I just knew they lifted me up. They made me feel good. ?Who is this man, Walt Disney,? I kept asking everyone? ?He?s the man who drew Snow White, Bambi, Pinocchio, Fantasia, and Dumbo, ?Wow, I thought - his pictures are so beautiful.? I knew nothing of the agony of carving them into existence, nothing of the persistence of focus and skill it takes to get it right. The films simply appeared at my local theatre in a blaze of color and music. They just happened. Ultimately, they were the inspirations that shaped the course of my own destiny and inspired my career in animation. It would be years later that I would see the bigger picture and realize that nothing ?just? happens. You have to roll up your sleeves and make it happen. I was privileged to meet many of the men and women behind the scenes who labored to make those great movies. Some of them battled with alcoholism; some with depression and others with utter despair; some even taking their own lives. Walt was the glue that held them all together long enough to create animation magic; to help each of them up for a brief moment to leave a trail of magnificent beauty. To all of them, and especially Walt, I am grateful.

So, I wonder if we have within each of us that same spirit of dedication. We can?t all be Walt Disney, but we need such a leader. Sooner or later, somebody?s got to jump into the volcano or the village will starve. There will be a renaissance of 2D ? I?m sure of it! So, hang onto your dreams and practice your drawing skills, ?Art reflects life,? is a true statement, but sometimes ?Life reflects Art. Isn?t it possible that we have created the cynical audience? They could be reflecting what we have put on the big screen.

AnimatorX

03-31-2009, 01:50 PM

Don, just having you respond to one of my internet posts is a treat :} Whoopee! ( That's right. I still say whoopee, huzzah, and DRAT! hehe )

I have never been a fan of mean spirited humor, especially when it comes to animation. You would think filmmakers would adhere to a very important rule, which is to make LIKEABLE CHARACTERS! It seems films have been missing that element these days, favoring quippy one-liners and snarky pop-culture references over a decent, character-driven story. Luckily, we get the occasional gem like CORALINE, THE INCREDIBLES, or THE IRON GIANT.

And as for cynicism, don't get me started. You can't turn on the TV these days without being drenched in the stuff. I'll admit, it's nice to see some deviation from the norm. Variety is good! Animation doesn't just have to be kiddie fare. ( heck, I've never been a fan of "safe" animation anyway) But this crudely drawn, sex-and-drug-referenced-mush masquerading as "Adult" entertainment is so repellant it almost seems like the people who make it hate their viewers, or are just hollow shells of humanity who forgot how magical animation can be.

Just remember guys, even the most cynical teen or curmudgeony old man will still giggle at a cartoon coyote getting hit on the head with an anvil. So when someone tells you that certain stories will never sell, or that you're out of touch with today's "hip" audiences, you should make it a point to ignore that person completely. Don't let them suck away your passion with their negativity.

Another two cents ^_^

asifaarchive

03-31-2009, 06:06 PM

I don't think cynicism is the problem. We live in a cynical age. We can't just bury our heads in the sand and hope the clock will turn back to the days of Leave it to Beaver. The problem with current films isn't cynicism. It's that the cynicism isn't remotely honest. It's manufactured, pressed and processed, and reduced to formula. It's some sort of "substitute cynicism" up there on the screen- closer to Velveta than real cheese.

Honesty is what films today need, not innocence.

If we could go back to the honesty of such great cynics as Jonathan Swift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Swift" rel="nofollow) or Mark Twain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_twain" rel="nofollow)... or Al Capp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capp" rel="nofollow) or Walt Kelly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Kelly" rel="nofollow)... THEN we would be back on track.

Cartooning has the power to make a difference in the world. Just ask Thomas Nast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Nast" rel="nofollow) or Herb Block (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herblock" rel="nofollow). We're wasting the most powerful form of communication ever created on stupid crap. What possible use is another "talking dog picture" or princess movie at this point in time? Animators need to take back their medium and fight to say something real.

AnimatorX

03-31-2009, 06:35 PM

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Cynicism is a part of human emotion, and thus is necessary. And yes, without that element it'd be hard to appeal to more adults. Let's face it the more saccharine a film, the less likely they are to attend it. And I personally think you can appeal to adults as well as kids. Just look at Pixar. They do that with every successive film.

brandon

03-31-2009, 06:46 PM

It's a bit fallacious to say that 2D, when compared to 3D, is 'Cynicism vs. Innocence', as if those were our only two choices out there. What I'm hearing from Don (if I understand it correctly) isn't a call for the industry to crawl back into some cuddly pram of innocence and terse morality, or "Leave it to Beaver." It's a call for the industry to broaden its dynamic, which I think has narrowed considerably in the last decade or so. Cynicism is very entertaining when it is channeled through a character that fleshes out the cast in a film or production (Jenner, anyone?) but reliance on that one attitude leaves you with a one-dimensional film. Morality can be wearisome if it permeates every pore of a production like a third parent, but having an underlying moral behind a good story can only strengthen the efficacy of the film. There are also different audiences that are entertained by different things, and perhaps they like their material dry and cynical - that's fine, but force-feed the public one flavour long enough and they'll be dying for something with a little hope and heart in it. As a post note, I believe it took me so long to write this that Animator X already clarified the issue. "Just collating data, as they say."

AnimatorX

03-31-2009, 06:50 PM

Actually Brandon you clarified my statement quite effectively :} Bravo:D

asifaarchive

03-31-2009, 07:30 PM

Again, the problem isn't cynicism. It's one dimensional attitudes based on formulas, rather than an honest statement based on the world we see around us. I don't live in a world anything like the world of animated features. People aren't 100% evil like Maleficent or 100% good like the fairy godmother in Cinderella. Those sorts of symbolic characters may have meant something at some point, but in today's world, they're nothing but a tired old archetype.

In my interview with Bakshi, his main point (and the question he was answering) wasn't that animators should just go out and make pictures by themselves. It was that if the future of animation is just recycling the past, we might as well do the artform a favor and put it to sleep right now. Unless we're willing to think outside of the well worn paths of storylines, characters and designs, there's no point. We can always go back and watch Walt's films. We don't have to waste time watching the gradual fade of a tenth generation xerox of them.

Look at live action films... what would have happened if the live action film industry decided that Busby Berkeley's 42nd Street was what all films should look and feel like. And for the past 70 years, all we have had is lavish musicals about struggling performers who want to put on a show... No Frankenstein, no Citizen Kane, no Treasure of the Sierra Madre, no Vertigo... just 43rd Street, 44th Street, 45th Street, etc.

That would be a tragedy, right? Well in animation, we are looking at that exact car wreck played out with every animated film that comes down the line. They all look and feel like other films. They tell hackneyed and formulaic stories, replete with the tired old song at the beginning about how lonely the princess is, and the Pinocchio jack-in-the-box ressurection gag at the end.

Why are films being made that have so many elements in common with other animated films? Do animators just not have any original ideas for concepts that aren't just tired retreads of "Ben & Me", "Sleeping Beauty", "Jungle Book" and "Lady & the Tramp"? I've seen those films. Show me something new.

"Hope" and "Heart" are swell. I'm all for hope and heart. But not if that means turning "the illusion of life" into "the imitation of Walt".

Storyteller

03-31-2009, 09:13 PM

I would tend to agree with the story issue. Flashy graphics and effects are nothing without a wonderful story behind it. 2D animation and a good script... without one, the other cannot survive.

I have a feeling though, within the next few years, that things will change. 2D animation will always have more heart behind it all (in my humble opinion) and once the new artists learn to trust in themselves and their work, avoiding the quick and easy paths (3D), things will become much better. All hope is not lost...

JayTea

03-31-2009, 11:29 PM

...I don't live in a world anything like the world of animated features. People aren't 100% evil like Maleficent or 100% good like the fairy godmother in Cinderella. Those sorts of symbolic characters may have meant something at some point, but in today's world, they're nothing but a tired old archetype.
Are you saying we should abandon characters of a symbolic nature?
What is 2D animation? It is story telling with symbols. The problem is we need new - or more currently relevant symbols with which to tell stories with - and about.

Funny thing, even the 3D animated films have stuck with symbols.
The grand-daddy of them all "Toy Story" was all about symbols!
What is a toy? Most often it is, for the child, a symbol for something in the adult world.

Kung Fu Panda works with a whole series of symbols for the various styles of Kung Fu.

Ratatouille's story of an underdog making good could have been easily told in live action with all humans. A story that is old hat, really. How does one increase the drama, the challenge to be overcome? They did that by using a symbol for the protagonist. A symbol for something utterly UNREDEEMABLE - a rat.
To put the same degree of challenge before the protagonist in an all live action version of the story they would have had to make him something near a murderer or a pedophile!

I think the challenge for 2D is to find new, relevant, and potentially enduring symbols to play with.

brandon

04-01-2009, 10:30 AM

In my interview with Bakshi, his main point (and the question he was answering) wasn't that animators should just go out and make pictures by themselves.

I believe it really was his main point, in that he was describing how to 'survive in tough times', and his strategy was to ignore the imaginary barriers that the animation moguls (namely Disney) had placed there, and attempt to give the people a new, fresh product. He discusses the independently produced films around the 4 minute mark.

Q&A Segment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WApcUBcVMos" rel="nofollow)

I'm very glad you asked the question; perhaps we're just getting two different interpretations of his answer.

zanekohler

04-01-2009, 10:36 AM

Honesty is what films today need, not innocence.

I do agree with the Honesty part. I also get what you mean by it. As student I started to jot down notes as to what makes an honest animation. I figure it is on us to at least try and understand in part what is needed for change. Since it was sparked from here I thought I would come back and get everyone's opinion on what they think is needed to make it honest?

asifaarchive

04-01-2009, 11:08 AM

Are you saying we should abandon characters of a symbolic nature?

Absolutely.

Animation grew out of cartooning, which in turn, grew out of caricature. Caricature at its best is equal parts observation and exaggeration. An artist sees something real in the world around him and pushes it a bit to make it even more expressive. This creates a hyper-reality that is even more real than real.

Symbolic characters are shortcuts to communication. They just fill a space. We understand that the man with the pipe and briefcase is a businessman. The woman with the apron and rolling pin is his wife. But these archetypes aren't *alive*. They're just symbols and stereotypes- placeholders for characters, not actually characters themselves.

Look at Incredibles. Which character in there was the most vivid and alive? I think most people would say Edna Mode. Why? Because she wasn't just a generic seamstress... She was a very specific character. Her walk was unique. The way she held herself was unique. The voice was unique. The proportions and shapes were unique. Imagine how bland and boring she would have been if they had based her on one of the fairies in Sleeping Beauty and just put knitting needles in her hair and a pincushion brooch to make her a seamstress. Blechh! No! Edna was the most specific character in the entire film. Specific is ALWAYS better than symbolic.

The problem with animation today is that too many filmmakers are building stock stories populated with stock characters based on what they've already seen in animated films. They aren't going out to the real world and trying to capture and caricature that. The real world is an exciting and varied sort of place, full of all sorts of interesting people. Why limit yourself to concepts that have already been thought, said and drawn before? The only reason to do that is if you're lazy, or if you don't have an original idea in your head.

asifaarchive

04-01-2009, 11:23 AM

I would tend to agree with the story issue. Flashy graphics and effects are nothing without a wonderful story behind it. 2D animation and a good script... without one, the other cannot survive.

That isn't necessarily true. The Nutcracker sequence in Fantasia is one of the most amazing bits of animation ever created, but it has no story, and it certainly wasn't written as a script.

If you look analytically at the greatest animated features ever made... Snow White, Pinocchio, Bambi, Fantasia and Dumbo... only Dumbo has a well constructed story with balanced proportions. The rest have sufficient contrasts in mood, color and setting to be able to carry the audience through *without* an organized continuity.

Storytelling ability is much more important than the actual story itself. A gifted comedian can take the worst joke in the world and make you howl with laughter at it. Disney was like that. His stories had gaping plot holes, cheats, formulaic action, incredibly unbalanced proportions and blatant audience manipulation. But none of that mattered, because he was showing you pictures and movement that you could never see anywhere else. The visual continuity- which was in essence "flashy graphics"- carried the show.

The contrasts in the pictures and characters and colors created its own flow, independent from the story. It became something more like music than writing.

JayTea

04-01-2009, 11:36 AM

Storyteller

04-01-2009, 12:08 PM

That isn't necessarily true. The Nutcracker sequence in Fantasia is one of the most amazing bits of animation ever created, but it has no story, and it certainly wasn't written as a script.

Stories do not need words to be told.... and those cartoons you mentioned absolutely were scripted... and absolutely do tell a story... in my opinion.

asifaarchive

04-01-2009, 12:53 PM

Animated cartoons in the golden age weren't written as scripts. They were developed visually. See...

Writing Cartoons Pt 1: The Gag Session (http://www.animationarchive.org/2008/04/story-writing-cartoons-pt-1-gag-session.html" rel="nofollow)

Part 2: A Continuity Emerges (http://www.animationarchive.org/2008/04/story-writing-cartoons-pt-2-continuity.html" rel="nofollow)

Part 3: Structure (http://www.animationarchive.org/2008/04/story-writing-cartoons-pt-3-structure_25.html" rel="nofollow)

Part 4: The Rough Board (http://www.animationarchive.org/2008/05/story-writing-cartoons-part-four-rough.html" rel="nofollow)

(One of these days, I'm going to get time to put together the 5th and 6th part of this series.)

As an experiment, try writing out a one or two paragraph synopsis of the Nutcracker sequence of Fantasia and see if you find any sort of narrative thread to it. It's a lot harder to describe in words than you might think.

JayTea

04-01-2009, 01:19 PM

...
Look at Incredibles. Which character in there was the most vivid and alive? I think most people would say Edna Mode. Why? Because she wasn't just a generic seamstress... She was a very specific character. Her walk was unique. The way she held herself was unique. The voice was unique. The proportions and shapes were unique. Imagine how bland and boring she would have been if they had based her on one of the fairies in Sleeping Beauty and just put knitting needles in her hair and a pincushion brooch to make her a seamstress. Blechh! No! Edna was the most specific character in the entire film. Specific is ALWAYS better than symbolic.
Edna is a wonderful character. Her presence helped define the strengths and weaknesses of the main characters ( the parents ).

The problem is - Edna is not the story.
The story is played out with symbols that represent The Family and the many challenges to that family. Again, the basic story could be told in live action. Switching to symbols allows for greater humorous and dramatic exaggeration.

asifaarchive

04-01-2009, 02:57 PM

Penumbra

04-02-2009, 11:29 AM

I would rather see a small core group of generalist artists and animators creating consistent short films and marketing them on itunes for a few dollars than big features that would hire on a bunch of people and then lay them off in the down cycle.

I find myself completely in agreement with you on that one. I have only come across a handful of independent animators over the years, but I know many people who are vastly talented in other fields of visual art. The combined strengths of a group of artistic people who are maybe only marginally-trained in the subject of animation can be brought to bear on smaller-scale projects of the type you're talking about. And I think as the internet continues to grow and permeate media and society we'll see much more of that kind of thing.

I've always had a soft spot for collaborative works; if I ever find my way into such an endeavor it would literally be a dream come true.

When I was visiting the hat building Dale Baer joked that there's no celebrity status in being an animator which is humbling and ok but I think appreciation for the hard work that goes into making an animated feature is important. Until the public realizes and appreciates the effort, hand drawn animation might always take a back seat to other forms of entertainment.

That's a very real possibility, and it's quite saddening to me. As our culture's collective attention span shortens and we become ever more distracted by Shiny Things and how easy and fast they are to manufacture with little to no soul put in... I don't see a lot of hope for the industry of 2D animation per se, though I'm sure there'll always be a place for the technique in advertising and the like. I think the key is to keep the art form alive on a smaller scale, which will allow for a lot more risk-taking and perhaps some darker-edged stories and characters to begin showing up. The sheer contrast between the typical cartoon story these days and the more honest, passionate and real efforts of enthusiasts and professionals is what's going to show up most strongly - if and when small animation collectives like the ones we're talking about ever become reality, of course.

We can supply, certainly, but is there demand anymore? And in what ways might we adapt the art form to current societal and technological mores? Very heady stuff... But interesting. :)

AnimatorX

04-02-2009, 11:53 AM

I would rather see a small core group of generalist artists and animators creating consistent short films and marketing them on itunes for a few dollars than big features that would hire on a bunch of people and then lay them off in the down cycle.

Well then do it. Any artist with enough inspiration and motivation is already doing it. And the best part is, there's no studio interference. No moron in a suit telling you what is "marketable". But it's a different story with features. If you have a great movie idea it's damn near impossible to do it yourself. ( I do know of ONE guy who's actually making his own feature, but he's that rare insane talent. I couldn't do it. I'd need a sizeable crew of animators for one of my own scripts )

I think the key is to keep the art form alive on a smaller scale, which will allow for a lot more risk-taking and perhaps some darker-edged stories and characters to begin showing up.

Don't you think they already HAVE been showing up? Think about it. In the 80's and most of the 90's we had only kiddie animated musicals to choose from. Then we started getting films that treated us more like adults. IRON GIANT, INCREDIBLES, CORALINE, SOUTH PARK BLU...and it's continuing to this day. Heck, LILO & STITCH seemed dark to me compared to previous animated films.

Unless...of course...your definition of "dark" is in terms of Japanese anime or manga. A lot of young animation fans describe anime as "edgier". It's certainly more violent and sexual in nature sure, but does that really make an animated film "darker-edged"? I know to a lot of people they like animaiton but are embarassed to admit they have certain films because again, a lot of people see it as "children's entertainment".

One of the films I've pitched over the years is an animated werewolf film. It's moderately dark, has a lot of action, some blood and violence, and yet I still consider it a family film. ( based on its theme and story )
Studio execs ask me "What audience are you trying to pitch this to?" I try to explain "It's less a horror movie than it is a fantasy, and I'd like kids AND adults to be able to see it",

But... you say werewolf and someone automatically assumes HORROR in their minds. ( Thanks to the internet they may also assume it's a furry film, and we don't want to get into that hornet's nest ) All the development art in the world might not be enough to convince them of WHAT you're trying to do. That's why I think it's great we have the freedom to put our work up on the internet. I could make a 2-minute trailer...or animate a few scenes and based off that who knows, maybe some film executive will see it? A long shot for sure, but a lot of people use the internet to "sell" their wares.

brandon

04-02-2009, 12:10 PM

Well then do it. Any artist with enough inspiration and motivation is already doing it.

This site is a good resource for that sort of networking. These days, for short films anyway, you could corral a few fellow animators and dole out the tasking online, using modern technology to divy out layouts, tweening, etc. It would take one single webpage to post directing notes, storyboards, etc, and perhaps one more for assignments. And there's your short film.

Penumbra

04-02-2009, 12:24 PM

Don't you think they already HAVE been showing up?

I do! But I still think the overarcing public perception of animation is as always that it's for kids. Maybe now the adults and the older kids are finding more offerings, but nothing that I've seen really has the soul that I, personally, have been looking for. Some of Ghibli's come close, especially in recent years.

Unless...of course...your definition of "dark" is in terms of Japanese anime or manga.

Not -quite-, no, but I do find more of the particular flavor I enjoy in anime. What I would be happiest to see I think has more to do with quality of storytelling and strength of characterization than it has to do with gore or sexuality. Though there can be a place for that kind of thing, but it's utterly dependent on story and character. If it doesn't add to the work's purpose (communicating a story effectively) it shouldn't be there. Your mileage may vary, of course, and I'm having trouble putting into words exactly what I mean here.

It's a certain level of subtlety and ambiguity in storytelling that I find lacking in animation these days. Even more "adult" animated projects (the ones that include things like violence, say, a la Avatar) still smack of being made For The Kids. I would love to see, for example, Steven King's Dark Tower series made into an animated film. Would it not just be perfect? But then again, I am a big fan of magical realism, so there's that too. ^^

Actually, the Animatrix is a good example of what I'm thinking of when I say dark and/or edgy. Particularly the skateboarding kid segment. There's meat to that story, and it's dark and not entirely pleasant and hard to look at face-on. Layers. Ambiguity. Reality!

But... you say werewolf and someone automatically assumes HORROR in their minds. ( Thanks to the internet they may also assume it's a furry film, and we don't want to get into that hornet's nest )

Yes, we are definitely hampered by the tyranny of genre. XD (Having started my artistic journey on the outskirts of furry many years ago, I definitely know what you're talking about in terms of that particular genre's reception, as well. Oy.)

AnimatorX

04-02-2009, 02:51 PM

Layers and ambiguity are fine in small doses, but a single viewing of Mystery Science Theater will tell you there are way too many films that overdose on it. People don't like to wonder or think about their entertainment, especially as it relates to animation which is at its core, escapist in nature. Sometimes they just want to cheer or laugh or see teenagers getting killed by a deformed mongoloid in a hockey mask. If a film comes along and it's too vague, they're unlikely to recommend it to friends.

I think animation works best when it's easy to tell what's going on. Too much introspection and vagueness and you lessen the fun of watching. As the saying goes, "show don't tell". But on the other hand if you spoon-feed an audience the plot it's just as bad.

Even more "adult" animated projects (the ones that include things like violence, say, a la Avatar.

We should be careful not to confuse action with violence. A lot of action uses violence, but in my mind the negative connotation refers to intentional cruelty. Avatar is a fantastic show that doesn't pander to anyone. Adults AND kids can watch it. I think people see it as kid's entertainment because...well...it's shown on Nickelodeon, a kids network.

jeremyhopkins

04-02-2009, 10:17 PM

I would rather see a small core group of generalist artists and animators creating consistent short films and marketing them on itunes for a few dollars than big features that would hire on a bunch of people and then lay them off in the down cycle.
Well then do it. Any artist with enough inspiration and motivation is already doing it. And the best part is, there's no studio interference. No moron in a suit telling you what is "marketable". But it's a different story with features. If you have a great movie idea it's damn near impossible to do it yourself. ( I do know of ONE guy who's actually making his own feature, but he's that rare insane talent. I couldn't do it. I'd need a sizeable crew of animators for one of my own scripts )

So I think the original quote was taken out of context. What I was referring to was the production cycle trend which can lead to apathy and frustration if artists are just treated as expendable labor. Granted, this is nothing new but when you're trying to rebuild a studio and do great work, the most important resources are the people. Rather than hiring a bunch of artists and technicians for temporary feature work, I'd rather have them invest in a few really talented people for long term development in shorter projects. Though it has been difficult in the past to market and find a paying audience for short films. Thankfully itunes and hulu have changed that model somewhat and I feel if marketed carefully on itunes, they'd do alright. It wouldn't return hand drawn animation to the glory days but it would allow experienced talent to guide young talent in a positive way. Which in term would allow everyone to make mistakes on smaller projects and build a cohesive, communicative, and positive environment focusing on a variety of projects rather than hoping that one major film will save the industry.

As for the doing part, yes, this is exactly what I'm doing now. Fortunately for everyone, Apple has an app store that allows anyone to submit products. So apologize if I can't always join in on the conversation, since I believe this type of discussion is very valuable, but I'm busy getting my own business off the ground.

CanAur

04-03-2009, 02:51 AM

I wanna tell you some fact of russian animation.

Our good hand-drawn animations are more CHEAPER than a good 3d animation in production.

For example the most expensive animated movie we ever had ($2,5 millions) became also the best animation in russian box office ($9,0 millons)

Bee Movie had only $7,65.

But unfortunely we lost our last animation school "Pilot" when it's founder Alexander Tatarsky was died in 2007. And we think it soon will be closed.

AnimatorX

04-03-2009, 07:21 PM

That's a pity about the school. I hope another is established in Russia someday. There are probably lots of talented Russian animators out there waiting to be trained.

jeremyhopkins

04-03-2009, 08:16 PM

I share your frustrations. I have experienced many of the same feelings over the years. I can't give you a for sure answer to the funding of a project but here's how I did it.
I kept my day job so that money was coming in weekly. While animating at Disney's, I moonlighted at night for about 4 hours on a project called Banjo the Woodpile Cat, a 26 minute short. The strength of of our project was the friendship that developed among the artists working on the project. None of them were paid. Our intent on making the 26 minute short was to relearn animation principals that somehow had fallen through the cracks at Disney's. There were 17 of us working on the project in my garage, and it took us seven years to complete it. Persistence was surely our saving grace.

On several occasions, we approached Disney studios and asked them if they would like to see what we were working on. We told them that we had discovered many new techniques that we could now incorporate into the feature work at the studio. No one was interested in the project. However, several ex Disney executives had formed a company called Aurora to produce their own films. They found a man in Chicago who saw our work on Banjo and was convinced that we could make a high quality movie that would be competitive with Disney. He offered to invest 6.2 million dollars for us to make The Secret of NIMH. When we told Disney that we were going to leave them to make our own animated movie, they laughed and told us we would fail.

Snakebite, what I have come to understand after producing 12 animated feature films is: The production road is fraught with trouble and requires sacrifices. To be able to make those feature films and get distribution for them, I personally was required by the studios to sign over the rights to the characters I designed. Every character I have ever designed belongs to some studio in Hollywood. Moreover, Don Bluth Pictures would not exist if I had not been willing to do that.

To this day, I am grateful to the investor in Chicago who started the ball rolling. My reward over the years has never been about money. My love for the art of animation and the dream to be a part of it, has been fulfilled. I have no regrets and I would do it all over again. I expect any of you contemporary artists can have the same dream and fulfillment. We must avoid cynicism and bitterness and maintain hope that when you create a thing of beauty, you raise the level of consciousness in our society.

If I were to start again today, I would begin the studio in my garage. I would employ with what ever funds I could find, the best writer possible. I would rally the troops using the Internet and particularly, this forum to storyboard, layout and animate. This would be under the banner of resurrecting 2D animation. That is a cause worth fighting for. Surely, there would be those that are willing to sacrifice to support that. Where there is no money involved, you must substitute kindness and friendship.

One more thing...

There is a tendency in animation to mistake "hard to do" with "quality". Pinocchio was a great film, but it wasn't great because Walt forced his artists to spend hundreds of thousands of hours working unpaid overtime and attending forced art classes. It was great because it expressed beautiful ideas.

The perfect example of the sort of waste of effort Disney has become known for is the multiplane shot just before Pinocchio leaves for school. It's one of the most elaborate shots ever created, requiring a staff of CalTech scientists with slide rules to plot the complex camera moves. When the film premiered, the audience just sat through the shot as if it was just another scene, yet they applauded a shot of the boat leaving for Pleasure Island which was a static background.

Audiences don't care how many people sweat blood and lived on coffee, booze and rolaids for a year. All they want is a good picture to watch. That comes from original ideas presented clearly and expressively, not from hard labor alone. We shouldn't be emulating the torture of the past, just the inspiration.

I thought these were really great points from Don and Steve on the animation nation board and felt they could add something to this discussion as well.

We must avoid cynicism and bitterness and maintain hope that when you create a thing of beauty, you raise the level of consciousness in our society.
I full agree with this statement as it relates to the artist. One thing I really admire about experience artists, like Don and Floyd, is acknowledging and working within the system but not becoming bitter or emotionally bankrupt. For me, the death of traditional animation doesn't come when nothing is being produced, and a break can be a good thing as Steve mentioned earlier, but when the artists have lost their creative spark to do something special.

CanAur, you bring up a really good point about European and Russian artists.
Some of the most talented people I worked with were Russian, Spanish, French, Irish.. etc Also Europe continued to produce great films like:
Asterix and the Vikings
4hDOLT5eQ9c
Nocturna
fafSU5bbRg0
France has probably the best school in the world for developing animation talent. I'm always surprised and impressed when Gobelins showcases student work:
078LS3QYE4A
GH8SrE1ipLo
aTXZS_clET4

CanAur

04-04-2009, 03:04 AM

That's a pity about the school. I hope another is established in Russia someday. There are probably lots of talented Russian animators out there waiting to be trained.

Yes, but all of them are students of the old USSR school or 90th "Pilot".

brandon

04-04-2009, 12:26 PM

Every time I watch a Gobelins film, it forces me to amp up my artwork; it's quality that seems nigh unreachable, because I can't even fathom at this point in my own journey how something so complicated could be constructed.

AnimatorX

04-09-2009, 10:17 AM

lavallelee

04-09-2009, 11:47 AM

If I were to start again today, I would begin the studio in my garage. I would employ with what ever funds I could find, the best writer possible. I would rally the troops using the Internet and particularly, this forum to storyboard, layout and animate. This would be under the banner of resurrecting 2D animation. That is a cause worth fighting for. Surely, there would be those that are willing to sacrifice to support that. Where there is no money involved, you must substitute kindness and friendship.

Here Here!!! I am willing to move anywhere really to work with fun and nice people. I might not be a great artist or animator, I do have a long way to go. But I have a drive, and i want to be around others who also have an animation drive. :)

As long as i have a roof over my head and food in my belly, i would work on something great with any of you nice people :D Learn off each other, and make something that will be loved through the generations. Like all of Don's movies/cartoons.

So who's garage am i moving into?? I take top bunk :cool:

Dave

04-09-2009, 11:55 AM

As long as i have a roof over my head and food in my belly, i would work on something great with any of you nice people Learn off each other, and make something that will be loved through the generations. Like all of Don's movies/cartoons.

So who's garage am i moving into?? I take top bunk

Eh... I got top bunk already! You can have the space in the corner by the fridge.:D

lavallelee

04-09-2009, 11:59 AM

Sweet, the fridge will be just an arm length away, i wont have to get up to get any snacks. ;)

johncbeggs

04-09-2009, 11:58 PM

Eh... I got top bunk already! You can have the space in the corner by the fridge.:D

Well we all could take shifts, Im a night owl so were all set lol

jeremyhopkins

04-10-2009, 01:49 PM

Yeah those Goeblin students are insane. It makes me wonder if school like CalArts ( which I'm a graduate of ) is actually going about things the wrong way? There, you make your own film. At Goeblins, from what i know, they make students team up, hence, the more polished looking films.

I talked with Emud, who worked on the team that created octopodi,
qreOELd35Ig
about how Goeblins consistently produces great student films and yes, I think part of it is working with a group to produce a final project. He also mentioned that Goeblins has no formal life drawing instruction and that everyone accepted is expected to come in at a level where they draw and design well enough to be able to focus 100% on animation and their short film. Then they just work their butts off and have great teachers who are there for them when they need help.

In all fairness Cal-Arts should be given its due as well since there's some really great work. I think there's more on the Cal-Arts website but it always kills my browser for some reason. These were the ones I could find on youtube:

Hyun and her team made, 'The Chestnut Tree':
VsS4Tk-lrxo
David pointed out Jen's work but its unfortunate that whole versions of her short films aren't on youtube. They're really fantastic:
KlXGzUouqjE

Amazing considering these folks studied and excelled at traditional animation at time when the studios had declared the medium, dead. Always gives me hope that it'll never quite go away as long as there are talented students to learn the craft. Now they've got their chance to shine on Princess and I'll be very happy to see their work come December.

AnimatorX

04-10-2009, 02:28 PM

Seeing these demo reels makes me want to go back to CalArts for another semester. It really was the best time of my life. We were all young and this was a whole new world for us. How I miss it.

But then, being a professional's not too shabby either. :}

Hammy

04-18-2009, 02:42 AM

Firstly, thank you so much Don Bluth for having this forum up! :) I think it's amazing someone great like yourself are reaching out to the younger generations of artists.

In regard of the topic, I agree fully with you. I am still wondering if Walt Disney Animation studios will bring back 2D animation again in the years to come, I seem to remember reading about John Lasseter wanting to revive it a couple of years ago.. Will they turn Walt Disney Animation fully 2D in the near future?

I'm a little skeptical about Princess and the Frog, truth to be told. Although it looks amazing so far and has appealed many 2D animation fans. Mainly I am concerned of the prince character, he does reminds me too much of Eric from Enchanted, and it makes me wonder how much originality went into the film?

I have friends who complained the frog looks generic too. Something about what Walt Disney used to do is he often strives for originality, and also exploring new things to use for films was what I thought that also kept Disney going for a long while. Pixar seems to have inherited that and have constantly been exploring new story ideas with very different characters as well.

However, I'm still looking forward to it being a big success and hope it will motivate Disney to make more 2D films again!! :) I love 2D animations a lot, although at the moment I am studying 3D and realize animating in 3D also gave me quite a different perspective of how to handle animation in 2D, and vice versa. I think learning both medium can be pretty fun, honestly. But it's pretty tough work to get really quality animations out from both medium.

Hana

04-18-2009, 04:53 AM

I personally don't think Disney will ever go back to only 2D animations ever and they shouldn't in my opinion. As much as I love 2D 3D has it's own charms as well.

I'm also a little skeptical about the Princess and the Frog as well because they had to pander to everyone who screamed about some sort of stereotype and discrimination. How can you be original when you can't do anything?

Also I hate that hillbilly firefly thing SO much xD

I am hoping it does kick off 2D again as the balance in 2D feature films and 3D has been lacking. I do feel though 2D should come back because there are things you just can't achieve in 3D that you can in 2D and vice versa. 3D was really that huge big new thing and now that we are starting to achieve these absolutely mind blowing animations through it I think more people will start to turn back to 2D as 3D will just become the norm.

N8Dogg5k

04-21-2009, 02:35 PM

On the subject of symbols, icons, caricatures, archetypes, etc. etc. in the world of animation, or even entertainment for that matter, all I can really say is that I feel it is best to capture/acquire a degree of balance with both.

I believe it is possible to have a character that stands as an archetype, but is still interesting. It really just comes down into it's execution. For instance, say you have Bruce Timm's version of Batman from Batman The Animated Series. Batman is and always has been one the superhero archetypes out there. Dark, brooding, mysterious, Batman encompasses everything that makes the more "darker" superhero.

Bruce Timm simply saw fit to really just characterize Batman in such a way that he embraced the archetypes that made him who he is as a symbol, yet gave him certain qualities that also made him a man, and a very believable one at that.

Now maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but I really do think that you can have something iconic/symbolic but really bring it back down to earth and make it palatable to those looking at it. Bruce Timm's work on the DC cartoons has shown me this on taking iconic and archetypal characters and really giving them a sense of human charm.

Frankly though, when you really do look at it, a lot of characters out there fit into some one stereotype or another, but it is the execution of that stereotype that a character can truly shine through as a human while still possessing those symbolic qualities that everyone associates with the icon.

A show like Avatar The Last Airbender did this as well. Bringing in a plethora of archetypal characters, but giving them certain human foibles that make them so embraceable.

And also I do feel a show like Avatar or Batman were indeed more mature shows. Violence, drugs, sex, etc. etc. are all just that, if the subjects surrounding them are not really explored or developed upon. Batman and Avatar take some serious/mature subjects like racism/sexism hate, anger, revenge, honor, and develop on them by incorporating them into the characters motives, emotions, etc. and present them in a such a way that they don't feel force feed or tacked on for the sake of just saying that they have some "serious" subject matter. It all feels natural and believable.

To culminate all that I'm getting at, I do believe that Mr. Bluth himself stated it best that some of the greatest stories out there are the ones that really just tell you something you already know...

JayTea

04-21-2009, 05:16 PM

...some of the greatest stories out there are the ones that really just tell you something you already know...
Interesting assertion.
Is this just another way of saying there are no new stories?
It also reads to me as saying it may better to produce "comfort food" than "food for thought".

dmgctrl

04-21-2009, 05:23 PM

I think the point being made here is that everyone likes to say "thats what I've been saying all along"! Maybe having a story mete out opinions already held is deemed satisfying enough to be considered a good story.

Oh wait. Yeah, that IS kinda "comfort food".

Snapai

04-21-2009, 07:11 PM

Or, alternatively, it could be more a sort of "acknowledging the elephant in the room" phenomenon. I mean, just because you're familiar with the main elements of a story, doesn't mean it's not something you could use to hear.

The old versions and old tellings of it may have become trite and cliche. A new version tickles old memories, while still giving you that whole "Wow, I never thought of it THAT way before" feeling.

Star Wars was a story that followed a classic "epic" storyline, but when it was released, it seemed like the newest thing in the world, because it was futuristic space fighters rather than ancient greek or arthurian characters in the story. It didn't seem like a fairy tale that couldn't happen any more.

JayTea

04-21-2009, 10:44 PM

I like your take on that, Snapai. :)

N8Dogg5k

04-22-2009, 01:42 AM

Like I said before, it all comes down to the presentation of the material.

That why I said you can have interesting archetypal characters. Same goes for the narrative of a story. Depending on how the story is presented, you can make the old seem new again, or remind people of why certain story/fable/myth types out there were great to begin with.

Not that there is anything wrong with food for thought, but I guess that one really just comes down to what the creator is really going for. Something more simple yet deep, or something deep yet simple...

BrioCyrain

05-05-2009, 09:20 PM

True, I am tired of 3D movies, Pixar and Dreamworks is OVERRATED! Yes..overrated. Though most of the 2D stuff now like Mr. Bluth said is just crud worthy of never being drawn in the first place

AND YOU CAN BLAME PEOPLE LIKE CARTOON NETWORK FOR THAT!

My goal is to make christian animated films...2D that is, but people say...oh that might be too expensive...and I am going like...Who Cares?

Hammy

05-05-2009, 09:53 PM

Heads up guys! Some preview on the Princess and the Frog. Watch it while it's still on.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40985

I'm going to have to take back what I said about being skeptical, this is looking a lot better than the teaser. I like the fact the frog talks compared to the teaser which wasn't much. And his attitude is pretty funny. I hope they come out with more trailers soon.

I guess I am going to have to disagree with you there Brio. : ) I wouldn't think Pixar and Dreamworks are overrated, and in fact I am glad they are doing very well because the animators need their job! And a lot of them ARE very talented 2D animators/ artists before they become 3D animators. Also most still learn from 2D's principle in animation. I'm all for any entertaining and good movies to be successful.

BrioCyrain

05-05-2009, 09:58 PM

Yeah, but none of them are using their 2D talents, just wasting it on stuff like Wall-E and all those Shrek spin-offs. All 3D movies are now hit and miss, it wasn't back then when you had good stuff like Toy Story...now it's just an oversized overbudget medium with no love for 2D...

Hammy

05-05-2009, 10:41 PM

If you actually watched Bolt, or Ratatouille, or Kung fu Panda, they have their titles/ credits animated in 2D. So they are still using their 2D talents still whenever they get the chance to. As far as I know, there are many 2D animators that got trained to animate in 3D during the Disney's 2D downfall!

The two movies you mentioned wasn't their best stuff in my opinion, but it doesn't make them any less of a great studio. It's not easy to keep striking a perfect 100% all the time as well, just like school grades. : ) Regardless, I'm still glad they are able to keep going even without a 100%. Nobody wants to make a movie that would fail too, so within themselves it's also a hit or miss thing a lot.

And as for love for 2D.. I think you maybe very wrong on that one. Considering Disney did TRIED to go back to it and are struggling too ever since they changed management. I'm not sure if you saw this but this is done quite recently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hkh3jHNc4Ls

I really hope they make more of this though, and I really want to see more classic Donald Duck because he is my most favorite Disney character ever. They tried to drag with the Quack Pack stuff but it didn't seem to have the same appeal as the classic one for me. : (

Sorry for the lengthy post, but I will rest my case! Watching and making them is also very different, so I guess it's alright it's fine you simply don't enjoy the 3D movies out there!

johncbeggs

05-05-2009, 11:17 PM

I agree with hammy aswell, even though I dont prefer Creating 3d models or what they do im not sure of :) doesnt mean I cant enjoy them for what they are.

ratatouille- was really cool but a rat controling a kid by his hair is kinda an odd mixture into a movie.

Kung-Fu-Panda- It was okay, alot of people in the theatre loved it and I looked back and everyone was laughing most of the time. :confused: .....why :laughing:

Alexandra Poston

05-06-2009, 03:37 AM

The woman who does a lot of the hiring for Dreamworks came over to our school to talk about how to get a job with them, and I got so excited, since I'd seen that 2D insert in Kung-fu Panda. It made me think that maybe they had the space for some multi-media in their studio, and that they'd keep their eyes open for some 2D talent. When I asked her the question, however, she replied that they will never hire a 2D animator who has no experience with 3D modeling and animation. I mean, right now you pretty much have to have experience with the computer to get a job in a big animation company, it seems. I've heard from a buddy of mine that got hired into Pixar, however, that Pixar often hires 2D animators and teaches them the programs, since many 2D animators have a stronger grasp on the application of animation theories and concepts.

Another big company I'm putting a lot of hope into is Laika! Laika house already has a 2D department for advertizing. I asked some of the animators who worked on Coraline to see if perhaps they were planning on any 2D features in the future. As of right now, they're not planning on anything, but the company as a whole prides themselves in being a mutli-media studio. If 2D can find its way back into theaters (with the princess and the frog, for instance), then perhaps 2D has a future in feature animation with Laika as well.

Hammy

05-06-2009, 03:53 AM

Hi Alexandra,

When DreamWorks Animation came to my school for a talk, they too said the same thing about not hiring someone without any 3D background. However, I believe it might be untrue somewhere in their company because they certainly hired someone from Calarts with an extremely strong demo reel in the recent years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlXGzUouqjE

Jen Hager is now working at Dreamworks as an animator if I am not mistaken. Considering her demo reel is dated 2007 and she graduated in 2005, I think it's still a pretty recent thing that she got in there.

So don't lose hope if you wish to focus on 2D and to get hired in a 3D studio. I don't think it's as easy considering more and more 3D students out there are getting better each year, Ringling has amazing talents this year that can basically draw well and animate so well in 3D too. It's all about your skill set, I think, and luck probably plays a big role.

Good point on Laika, I am hoping to see them expand too because I love what they did with Coraline. I think the story could have been stronger at some point, but overall it's so beautiful I hope to see another movie from them again.

Edited for Grammar.. Sorry, my English isn't the best. ^^;

Alexandra Poston

05-06-2009, 07:59 AM

Hammy,
thank you for that information! I've been eyeing that demo reel for a while now, and I almost sent her a message asking her where she worked now. I wanted to know what a strong 2D animator such as her, and a recent graduate, is doing now in the business. That's really great to hear that she got hired up by Dreamworks, and inspiring.

I spoke with Laika, and it was the most interesting thing. They're a big company with a small company's mentality. They allow themselves teh space to get real creative. Take a look into their 2D commercials, I got so excited about it, that I don't think I would mind working on commercials at all for them. Or music videos, for that matter, that sounds exciting too.

I cross my fingers that that bucket of luck re opens the world to 2D animation! Maybe another golden age is on its way, hm? One can hope. :) Your English sounds fine~

Snapai

05-06-2009, 09:21 AM

When I asked her the question, however, she replied that they will never hire a 2D animator who has no experience with 3D modeling and animation.

Of course, you realise, that as far as the job market is concerned, never is actually a really really short time, right? ;)

Basically what this means is

They don't have any 2D animated movies planned or budgeted right now.
They don't plan on (haven't budgeted) training people in the basics of 3D right now.

But you can bet if they someday decide to do a 2D-animated movie, they'll be more than willing to look at a 2D-only reel. :)

Though I'm sure some diversity on your reel helps! When some studio reps came to speak at my school, some of them said they really aren't too worried about the demoreel, provided that you have a portfolio of outstanding life drawing.

Regan

05-06-2009, 09:48 AM

I think the best bet is to aim for storyboarding and design jobs now, if you want to do drawing...and do your own animation in your spare time.

Because I reckon there ain't many animation jobs. Even nurses aren't getting jobs now. :eek:

lavallelee

05-06-2009, 01:41 PM

all honesty, i don't think i would want to work for a studios unless its don bluth's (which would be the greatest!)

i myself want to make cartoons for my sites, with my stories and ideas (which i have thousands of!)

i don't want to be in an assembly line for some random animation studio, who would just chew me up and spit me out then give my job to someone overseas

anyone agree?

Alexandra Poston

05-06-2009, 03:00 PM

Well, yes and no?
I want to work on animating in any studio, to practice my skills. I mean, Don couldn't have started DBProductions without having the experience at Disney first, right? at SCAD we're required to learn both 2D and 3D animation, and in both the same principles are used for the same outcome - timing, spacing, and acting, are used to entertain. Even if I end up doing 3D work, I'm still better understanding the analysis of motion, and the ability to entertain. Now, after working in a big place and getting a rep, I might be able to start something of my own one day, or have the chance. and if I get hired, used, and laid off after a short production, then at the very least, the experience wouldn't hurt. I would prefer to work on 2D animation, sure, that's my dream job. But, ultimately, my goal is to communicate a good moral, and to entertain.

Is Don planning on making more movies? Does Don Bluth Productions still exist? (I feel like this has been asked before and I just missed out on the answer) Regardless, this new cyber garage project's gonna be one helluva ride. I have to agree, if I had a chance to work for Don Bluth Productions and make more 2D animated films, I couldn't be happier.

Lifed

05-06-2009, 03:59 PM

2D/Traditional has taken a back seat due to the popularity gained by the first few good cg movies (toy story!). They've just overstayed their welcome, but as with any fad, they'll probably rotate in and out. I mean, even just lately, traditional and nontraditional 2D animation has gained much more popularity on the web. It's only a matter of time before someone comes up with a good 2D movie again that will be successful. It may not come from Disney, but there's got to be some small studio willing to give it a try. Heck, I had a dream of being involved in the making of a traditional animated film since I was 10. And I'll do my best to make it happen. Although I realize that my future is probably going to be in a small website full of some kind of series and comics, if I ever get a chance, I'm running with it.

jeremyhopkins

05-06-2009, 07:43 PM

Earlier in this thread they discussed most of key reasons why hand drawn animation has taken a back seat to other forms of entertainment recently. As artists and animation fans the first thing we notice are stories, design, acting and lack of entertainment that appeals to our sensibilities. The issue remains how do independents fund feature projects when investors can't see huge returns? Pixar, and Dreamworks more recent films, have been financial successes which gives them opportunities to create again. The debate about quality of the film is subjective but something about these films must resonate with audiences or they would stop going to see them in the theatre. Unfortunately for investors what makes a film special and relevant can't be manufactured as a widget. To them, they only see the financial results which are mostly positive for cg animation and for the last few traditional Disney films mostly negative. This coupled with Michael Eisner's parting shots at hand drawn animation, in his effort not to take responsibility for failed films and challenge Pixar for their cg sequels, have created a false belief that the hand drawn medium is no longer relevant in the industry today. It also allows for stragglers who take accept the easy story that cg is better. This is a clear cut difference that can get other 3d projects made when in reality it's just that the cg stories from Pixar connect with their audiences.

We have never seen another time in the industry when we have had so many animated features released in one year. In terms of production and content we are living in a golden age. Someone could argue that while it might be a golden age for production, innovation is lacking and that is understandable if each film has to generate a high return just to be considered a success. To meet production requirements on a Pixar film, it looks like the returns have to be north of 180 million (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=wall-e.htm" rel="nofollow). Yet they still had the guts to release a mostly dialogue free, Ridley Scott/Charlie Chaplin-esk movie. Better yet, it was a financial success despite some of its troubled areas.

Snapai

05-06-2009, 07:52 PM

Just something I'm wondering.

In the past few years, we've seen the release of quite a number of excellent animation books, that contain what was formerly secret or house animation knowledge, not to mention the instructional materials on this site!

Do ya think maybe that the "demise of 2D animation" is possibly making people feel more comfortable with or driven to publish what they know? Now that it's not that the "competition" might get it, but more to let anyone interested in the artform understand how it's done?

Lifed

05-07-2009, 02:14 PM

In my opinion, it could be the opposite. I appreciate animated films a lot more now than I did as a little kid. That's because I realize how much work it takes. So extra knowledge about it, to me, does the exact opposite than not knowing "secrets" and such.

AnimatorX

05-08-2009, 12:03 PM

BrioCyrain

05-08-2009, 02:06 PM

I believe studio executives have really underestimated the popularity of hand drawn films. Right now a lot of us pro animator are griping about "The princess and the frog" because deep down, we're worried that if this film comes out and does poorly, it's yet ANOTHER nail in the coffin of FEATURE hand drawn animation.

I must admit, I'm worried too. But it can't always be up to a big company to continue any one art form. That's why Don split from Disney so long ago. He was worried about the direction the company was going. You all know the story.

I think it's important for people to take charge, as he did, and start up studios of their own. After all, we are living in the age of "do it yourself" where technology has made it possible for even a small group of artists to produce a feature film.

Heck, I know an ex-disney guy who's animating his OWN film. ALL of it. He's got 48 minutes of color done!

I have to agree, it's either do it yourself or have some asian studio animate it for ya for a million bucks. The whole issue is that disney and others went the outsource route because people like WB and others started jumping on the outsource wagon back in the late 70s/early 80s. Now many americans either just do 3D or invest in a budget and just go overseas.

People like Mr. Bluth and us plan to stick to what worked and has always worked...try to make our own stuff.

Lifed

05-08-2009, 02:07 PM

Heck, I know an ex-disney guy who's animating his OWN film. ALL of it. He's got 48 minutes of color done!

Who's that? He's pretty much my new hero.

Don Bluth

05-08-2009, 03:15 PM

What I know about the swinging of a pendulum is that it swings in two directions. The current swing of animation is in the CG world. Audiences will tire of an animation style that begins to repeat itself over and over. Surely a new direction in animation is imminent; that new direction could be 2D or not. I believe the real deciding factor is not the style of hand drawn art or CG art but rather depends on the imagination of a good script writer. The script is the key. But, given that some genius come along lays the perfect script on the table, we animators can certainly wreck it with amateurish drawings and acting. An animated movie like a live-action movie must be filled with mystery, intrigue colorful characters and a little bit of moral insight. Sadly, most of the animated films been produced today come out looking like copies of copies of copies.
I believe the perfect script will come along. The purpose of the Don Bluth Animation website is to set up a mentor/apprentice relationship that will hopefully get you ready for that event. It's coming; I don't believe it will come from a major studio but an independent; it could be one of you!

jeremyhopkins

05-08-2009, 03:16 PM

I think it's important for people to take charge, as he did, and start up studios of their own. After all, we are living in the age of "do it yourself" where technology has made it possible for even a small group of artists to produce a feature film.

I totally agree but feel even in the last 20 years a few significant changes have happened. People are taking on more debt from school, house payments, car loans, which make it difficult to find time for outside projects. They have to be working full time and maybe an extra job just to make all the payments on their stuff. Another issue is under bidding projects which require employees to work round the clock to get things done. It's one thing if you're working for a director who has a vision and the producers don't quite have enough money to get the feature done. It's a different thing when the studio deliberately under bids the project just to save a few bucks. These trends also added to the demise of hand drawn animation. It takes time to develop talent and then it takes a special person to direct and finish a film that means something to people. I don't mean for my last couple posts to sound cynical since we are very fortunate to have a thriving production industry and the way to success is to keep learning and creating!

BrioCyrain

05-08-2009, 03:19 PM

BrioCyrain

05-15-2009, 12:16 AM

Seems like this thread has gotten a bit dead.

I was just thinking a few moments ago how a lot of my favorite 2D films were musicals by disney(I mean the characters dancing and/or singing music). Disney has "somewhat" brought this back with the 3 High School Musicals, but it's just not the same having these over make-upped(don't know if that's the correct term ha ha) teenagers in swimsuits and such randomly singing songs as it the songs in disney films and even in some of Don Bluth's or his studio's films have well plot out music depending on the mood or situation.

I am just hoping Princess and the Frog brings singing back(which I think someone said something about a singing crocodile?) to animated films as well as well-composed music to go with it. If I ever was to create my own animated film there would be at least one "theme song" that was song in the duration of the film.

Thoughts?

WhisperPntr

05-15-2009, 11:47 AM

In the general state of things I think we all need to emotionally tighten ourselves and get to the heart of the matter. First, economically things are in the toilet and we can't expect to be given steady jobs with just our talents alone, though we probably all knew about this. Second yes I agree that a script is pretty much everything. I am not sure if it will come from an independent but I am pretty sure it will come from a writer who has a healthy dose of self-criticism as they will need to really drill themselves on good storytelling. Third, I support dreams but also want first and foremost to realize the current trends. Many of our target audience feel that 3d can emulate 2d and be "better" at it. Many also feel 2d animation is an outdated technology. Of course I feel for you. I know how it is not better and how it requires an incredible amount of skill to do well but tell that to our audience. There is a heavy bias towards detail and picture perfect perfection and realism over hand drawn emotive expression. Look at conceptual art and you tend to see the audience fawn over their paintings, myself included, yet never really question if they can animate well by hand when they produce a 3d animation.

In my opinion adapting to the trend but also crafting the trend to cater to you is the best way to get one's foot through the door. Again I can't do 3d if my life depended on it, but I am currently on the path to studying sequential illustration while also honing my conceptual art skills. It is the allure of the impressive detail as well as the ability to go back to my former love of emotive expression that has made me feel I can survive. For now comics that incorporate this detail that would be very time consuming to animate, are appealing to our audience and also gives us a chance for the 2d animation to develop. Comics are also very cheap, tell a good story and also reach a very wide audience.

Of course I favor a well drawn cartoon over a still image, but until we can capture a majority willing to pay for 2d animation I feel we many of us need to use this middle ground to get to that final dream.

Moneyguns

05-17-2009, 02:22 AM

One thing I've always noticed in video games and other 3D stuff is that the 2D concept art always looks a million times cooler than the finished product.

johncbeggs

05-17-2009, 03:14 AM

I am in for 2D or Im in for nothing :D
you want someone devoted you got it!

I just need to get better real quick :)

Hana

05-17-2009, 03:37 AM

Don't underestimate the power of 3D and what it can bring to 2D such as illustrated in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZA6nitNeYw

Alexandra Poston

05-17-2009, 12:24 PM

WhisperPntr

05-17-2009, 12:39 PM

I feel like often a large reason as to why artists are intimidated by 3D or program-based animation, is because they don't understand it. A lot of people tend to not like or get frustrated with things they don't understand. (Like how I disliked macs for a while, until I figured out how they worked). Ultimately, 3D and 2D is a medium, and the next frontier and evolution of beautiful animation should employ both together. That example of Tarzan was perfect, hell, the painted on top of the 3D model. Awesome! Because of that, I don't think I'm going to ignore 3D animation in my career; alienating yourself from a technique is only a weakness.

I've actually taken and done texture mapping on 3d models and definitely appreciate the modelers who have the talent to do them so quickly. However the argument I never liked was when certain people in my social circle felt that 3d was remarkably better than 2d. I have a preference for what looks good but never felt that the realism 3d had to offer was better than hand drawn animation. To me it was never a "3d is worse" or "2d is worse". I just felt that each were their own art form.

As for my not being able to use 3d, it is only because I haven't figured it out. I actually am a coder and I draw, but 3d is something I just haven't been able to understand. I appreciate it though as there is a certain mystery about an art form that you are unable to do.

jeremyhopkins

05-17-2009, 01:04 PM

Many of our target audience feel that 3d can emulate 2d and be "better" at it. Many also feel 2d animation is an outdated technology.
WhisperPntr you brought up some really great points though I've never heard from someone off the street mention the point about hand drawn animation being outdated technology. Normally this gets batted about by industry people and it seems to start as an excuse for why a film didn't succeed. The average movie going audience doesn't care, or would prefer to see live action actors because it appeals to their sensibilities or has children and would like to give them something to watch. Very seldom have I heard an audience member care about the dimension of the film. They might be attracted to the film because of the detail and depth as some people gravitate towards the realistic artworks in a museum. The danger comes with abstract works of art when it's difficult to judge the skill and value of an abstract symbol. We need someone, like an art critic, to explain the meaning and value. This is the challenge of hand drawn animation. If the average person can't see the value of something, they won't care if it goes away. Granted most 3d movies are abstract as well but I can agree they might be more easily relatable to the real world.

The real issue is greed or the polite way of saying it, stockholder value. Companies see huge profits in 3d animation and have to make up an excuse to shift their teams away from hand drawn animation. They don't care about legacy; they care about making money. Home on the range made 103 million (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=homeontherange.htm" rel="nofollow) worldwide which isn't great compared to 3d equivalents (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=pixar.htm" rel="nofollow) at the time but it's far from the failure Eisner and co would've had us believe. Brother Bear (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=brotherbear.htm" rel="nofollow) made 250 million which is 3x its budget before marketing. While I understand the need to make money, since we all like to get paid for our work, but this focus on crazy blockbuster status or nothing is ridiculous.

One thing I've always noticed in video games and other 3D stuff is that the 2D concept art always looks a million times cooler than the finished product.
Check out Paul Felix's (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0811865312?ie=UTF8&tag=charadesig-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0811865312" rel="nofollow) work on Bolt. I felt they maintained his vision quite nicely.

OwenWelsh

05-18-2009, 06:58 PM

Have any of you ever wondered why lately animated films seem so similar? Is it because as animators and film makers we watch each other?s works and get inspired in some way and then deliberately or subconsciously create something similar? Lately, I feel like art, especially in animation story-telling has become homogenized. It?s like a template. I?ve seen that character before. I can anticipate everything that?s going to happen. Everything feels familiar. Yes there's been some stand out work, but I feel like it?s a common trend lately.

BrioCyrain

05-18-2009, 09:07 PM

Have any of you ever wondered why lately animated films seem so similar? Is it because as animators and film makers we watch each other’s works and get inspired in some way and then deliberately or subconsciously create something similar? Lately, I feel like art, especially in animation story-telling has become homogenized. It’s like a template. I’ve seen that character before. I can anticipate everything that’s going to happen. Everything feels familiar. Yes there's been some stand out work, but I feel like it’s a common trend lately.

We "theatre" guys have a term for "similar" films. We call them formulaic or what you said uses a template. Many movies use this and also theatre plays, but recently animated films have been following formulas as well.

I remember my SISTER making this point after watching "The Emperor's New Groove" and "Cars" so figured these movies were subject to formulaic use. In both movies-

The main character: A selfish star/ruler who thought the world revolved around him.

The main character is either lost or dethroned and has to be "humbled" before facing the final challenge.

Faces the final challenge while still upholding some of his "humble lessons"

The humble lessons were taught by experience and some sort of "mentor".\

If you ever watch these movies by each other in your mind or recently this is a basic formula they hold. I am pretty sure other movies have used formulas but usually they pertain to a genre, but seeing how nowadays even multiple forms of animation and genres kind use the same formulaic standing.

Does that answer your question OwenWelsh?

jeremyhopkins

05-19-2009, 12:03 AM

Yes, there is a template but I don't think that is a primary reason for decline of traditionally animated films. We've discussed Joseph Campbell and the hero with a thousand faces where he describes the heroes journey which is similar to the formula you've mentioned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth" rel="nofollow). Whether you view this as diffusion or an integral part of psyche is irrelevant for storytelling, it just seems to work for the majority of the audiences. People connect with this pattern but what can make a film and what I'd like to see more of in animated film making is pushing the way the story is told. Momento stands out to me as a modern film that doesn't retread the same cliches in the same old way. It follows a similar pattern that the audience can relate with but adds a twist to make sure the audience is listening. If a story goes too far out of the box, it's hard to relate with the characters, like a David Lynch or David Cronenberg film, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just important to know you might lose half your audience. Sita sings the blues (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4278914640642723357" rel="nofollow) is an interesting take on animated storytelling. I'm still not sure what my feelings are for the film but it's done by one person and I can appreciate the uniqueness. Again, it's difficult to really push the boundaries on mainstream animated film making if it costs 180 million to make a movie and it has to be a mega success to make another. They want to make likable characters that connect with families so they can be resold as theme park attractions, toys, tv shows and potential sequels. Business vs art is always a tricky balance for animation.

OwenWelsh

05-19-2009, 12:06 AM

Yup I'm aware of the formulaic structure of stories, especially the Disney princess ones but it wasn't always this way. Looking at older films like Bambi, Alice in Wonderland and Pinocchio they seem very original to me. They don't follow that same rhythm that most other films do, they have their own groove. This can be said about a lot of Miyazaki films as well. I just think as film makers and artists we have to be very weary about what we've seen and to not subconsciously derive something from that. I'll be the first to admit that I'm guilty of this, but I'm trying to consciously catch myself if I start drawing something or thinking about something I've seen before... it's tough though. Sometimes I try to research everything that's been done before and look at those ideas and then make sure I don't do anything like it. But a lot of times it will lead you right back to one of those ideas :)

Don Bluth

05-21-2009, 12:28 PM

Imagine how much better the film would have been if the family had been defined in their particular personalities as strongly as Edna was in hers.

A good example in live action would be the Maltese Falcon. Every single character in the picture is distinctly unique and perfectly cast in their role. Bogart, Elisha Cook, Lorre, Greenstreet... they aren't just playing symbols. They ARE the living, breathing characters. The same goes for Archie and Edith in All in the Family. When a character performance is that strong and individual, it's impossible to imagine any other way of playing the character.

In animation, Mel Blanc's voice and the Warner directors' animation melded to create Bugs Bunny, as specific and focused an animated character as ever existed. He can express a million different emotions and function in any manner to the story- as hero or villain, winner or loser, but he is still Bugs Bunny.

This sort of creativity requires life experience. The animators who created Bugs looked to people they knew who were ****y wise-guys in the Bronx and created a character from that. Carroll O'Connor looked to the sorts of working class people he saw growing up in Queens and crystallized that experience into the character of Archie Bunker.

When the rest of us look at those characters, we recognize the observational reality behind them and immediately identify with them and relate them to real people we've met. A symbolic character doesn't draw us in like that. That's the difference between a character that serves a story as a pawn on a chessboard, and a character who comes alive.

It's a lot harder to create nuanced performances in animation than it is in live action. A live actor just has to curl a lip or slightly raise an eyebrow to create acting. Drawing that sort of thing is a lot harder. But the artist has the power of exaggeration- the ability to go beyond reality to caricature it. Caricature is the key to a strong animated character, and as I said before, that takes observation and exaggeration.

If a story could be told in live action just as well, why bother going to all the trouble to animate it. Animation has the ability to create its own reality. That's better than the plain old vanilla real world as far as I'm concerned.

asifaarchive
It is obvious that you have spent some time thinking through the animation dilemma, and I can agree with much that you say. With your knowledge of what would solve the current animation conundrum , I wonder why you don't jump into the competition and help conceptualize an animation feature that would be worthy of box office success or even critical acclaim. I have a great admiration for anyone that can put his/her finger on the nerve that is causing the problem, but I have a greater appreciation for he/she who can stop the pain. At the end of the day, when all is said and done, there are two elements that we're all seeking. The first is to earn a living and the second is to be honest with ourselves in representing our feelings with our art to other artists, our families and friends. To be passionate about what we do and make it pay is difficult, but I believe it is possible.
If all the exchange of dialog in this forum only serves to make the light bulb go on over one person's head, then it's been worth it. Animation cannot go on evolving unless we look squarely at the problem as I believe you are doing, and hunt for viable solutions.

zanekohler

05-21-2009, 04:22 PM

I would say outsourcing sure has not helped 2d industry over the years. I have read before where some companies justify it by saying that they don't have the budget to do it in house. By that definition it is either outsource or not at all. Also claiming (while fewer) still creating some in house jobs. I have no idea the number of studios truly in that situation or if it is just an excuse.

Snapai

05-21-2009, 05:13 PM

I think until the past couple years, the idea of making things has been pretty anathema to the US consciousness. We wanted to buy things, and watch things, and have things delivered to us for really cheap at Walmart regardless of where they're produced.

But lately, folks like Make Magazine have been popping up, showing people creating stuff in their own apartments or workshops. Stores like WholeFoods, with their focus on how the food is grown and what content it actually provides. Open Source software is now something touted by companies like Google and Dell. The new US administration talks often about responsibility and taking charge of the change we want to see in our own lives. This may have not yet hit the movie business, but I think right now it's becoming "in" to "do the work" so-to-speak.

Maybe a movie marketed (or at least pitched) as a "green" movie, done in-house and with a real meaning and a message (you know, the stuff put in grand-format animated movies anyways, but the average moviegoer doesn't think about) might get moviegoers in the thought process of "I'm going to see something healthy and fun". Maybe even a podcast or youtube series showing the production work.

Though I dunno how well that can stand up against proven fan franchises like Transformers, Star Trek, or Harry Potter :rolleyes:

Cartoon_Eric

06-03-2009, 02:25 AM

I couldn't agree with you all more then I already do. I loved 2D animation since I was just a little kid. In fact if the show on television wasn't animated I wouldn't watch it. =p Now I will admit that I did like the computer animated stuff as much as the next person, but you just cannot beat the ever-lasting charm that animation that was hand drawn can ever bring. And that's what I feel like is also missing with current 2D animated cartoon: Charm! Also one other thing is "guts". I can't quite describe what I mean by this very well but if you, somehow have the courage, at a look at the cartoons that are on the air now. Then backtrack to the early nineties during the time when Saturday mornings had shows like Animaniacs, Ren & Stimpy, Rocko's Modern Life, Batman, and plenty more up to the Golden Age of Tex Avery, Bob Clampett, even early Walt Disney, and you'll see what I mean when I said that charm and guts are what cartoons are missing these days. I also would like to mention that Mr. Bluth's films were pretty daring of their own. I remember watching the first "Land Before Time" movie as a kid and was a bit shaken after the death of Littlefoot's mother, and the fight with the T-Rex before. Also the movie "An American Tale" had plenty of moments that I wondered how other kids like myself could handle. Like the mice's idea of the giant mech mouse that scares off the cats near the end of the film, I swear I got nightmares from seeing that thing. I was a tough kid though, I still enjoyed the movie.

Now before I keep rambling on I'll just close this by saying that this is what I think cartoons are missing these days. Charm and guts. I don't believe kids these days have wimped out that much. At least I hope not.

asifaarchive

06-17-2009, 07:20 PM

asifaarchive
It is obvious that you have spent some time thinking through the animation dilemma, and I can agree with much that you say. With your knowledge of what would solve the current animation conundrum , I wonder why you don't jump into the competition and help conceptualize an animation feature that would be worthy of box office success or even critical acclaim.

I've been a Producer for about 20 years, and I've done pretty well with the television animation and commercials I've produced. My one foray into features was a terrible experience, but I loved the artists I worked with and learned a lot, so it wasn't a total loss.

Recently, I realized that I had pretty much achieved all the goals I had set for myself when I was just starting out. But I looked around and saw that the sort of animation that had been built up by people like Kahl and Jones and Fleischer was disappearing fast. It wasn't that the kid animators didn't want to do that sort of work... it was that the business was suffering from amnesia, reinventing the same wheel over and over. And too many filmmakers were taking the easy way out, playing quality limbo- "how low can it go and still be airable?".

If I was going to fight to reinvent animation, I had to reinvent how I approach the battle. Just doing good work myself wasn't enough. The whole animation field needs reinvigorating. So now I'm pouring it into the kids, giving them a resource for self-study and filling it with all of the inspirational reference and art instructional material that the golden age animators had. Schools aren't teaching it any more and the old guys are all dead. The kids have to work it out on their own. It's just been a few years, but already, we are seeing hope for a new generation of animators to pick up the torch and carry it a lot further than my generation of animators ever did.

More info on my project here...
About The ASIFA-Hollywood Animation Archive (http://www.animationarchive.org/2008/08/about-asifa-hollywood-animation-archive_09.html)

See ya
Steve

asifaarchive

06-17-2009, 07:36 PM

However the argument I never liked was when certain people in my social circle felt that 3d was remarkably better than 2d. I have a preference for what looks good but never felt that the realism 3d had to offer was better than hand drawn animation.

I suppose it is better if realism is your goal. But if that's the case, why not just pull out a camera and shoot it live. That's even more real.

Animation isn't about mimicking reality. It's about creating a reality that is *beyond* real... exaggerated and caricatured to bring out the essential truth in a crystal clear way. That goal goes all the way back through the art of cartooning and caricature practiced by Herriman and Covarrubias to the fine art of Goya and Soutine and even further to the point where pencil first met paper. The roots of animation run deep, but some folks who are more technically minded have very shallow roots. It shows in their work.

johncbeggs

06-17-2009, 10:28 PM

However the argument I never liked was when certain people in my social circle felt that 3d was remarkably better than 2d. I have a preference for what looks good but never felt that the realism 3d had to offer was better than hand drawn animation. To me it was never a "3d is worse" or "2d is worse". I just felt that each were their own art form.

3D is remarkably easier and thats why companys like it but is it even a form of art,well no not at all.- with the technology continueing its path into the future we wont even be givin the task to animate if we wanted to, Its probably all going to be automated and its going to be a sad time for 3d animators.
(already computers and robots are taking many jobs away from us humans- I wouldnt be surprized)

-I started researching young and while most of my peers were drawing weird looking alien people they called anime I was researching and studying the basics, I learned about all the masters and studied from them Windsor MCcay,Ub Iwerks,Grim natwick, Don Bluth;), Preston Blair , Roy disney and a hell of alot more masters of this art :D I could name them all and tell you what they animated and worked on

ASIFA- I instantly knew who this sketch was of too :) and also knew he designed mickey mouse!:D
animationarchive.org (http://www.animationarchive.org/index.html)
just scroll down abit its
-Ub Iwerks he as one of walts smartest animators and animated full cartoons in a couple weeks fast ive read!

Hana

06-17-2009, 11:15 PM

3D is remarkably easier and thats why companys like it but is it even a form of art,well no not at all.- with the technology continueing its path into the future we wont even be givin the task to animate if we wanted to, Its probably all going to be automated and its going to be a sad time for 3d animators.
(already computers and robots are taking many jobs away from us humans- I wouldnt be surprized)

I beg to differ about 3D being remarkably easier. There are so many many elements that I can't even comprehend in 3D that we don't need to worry about in 2D. 2D in a way is much more flexible because we can get away with more things.

In no way is 3D just done by the computer. There are people there to model a character, rig a character so that it can even move at all, build environments, texture every object, light the scenes, animators, then there is the camera, fur is again a whole new world and in things like over the hedge they have all specific individual hairs so that when characters touch they move accordingly, special effects like smoke and fire. There are the same amount of people working behind a high budget 3D animation as there is a 2D animation. While I have a preference for 2D don't be blinded by the fact it is done on a computer. It doesn't mean that it takes the same amount of effort.

johncbeggs

06-18-2009, 12:24 PM

I beg to differ about 3D being remarkably easier. There are so many many elements that I can't even comprehend in 3D that we don't need to worry about in 2D. 2D in a way is much more flexible because we can get away with more things.

In no way is 3D just done by the computer. There are people there to model a character, rig a character so that it can even move at all, build environments, texture every object, light the scenes, animators, then there is the camera, fur is again a whole new world and in things like over the hedge they have all specific individual hairs so that when characters touch they move accordingly, special effects like smoke and fire. There are the same amount of people working behind a high budget 3D animation as there is a 2D animation. While I have a preference for 2D don't be blinded by the fact it is done on a computer. It doesn't mean that it takes the same amount of effort.

Hana I have been doing 3D in a class and sofar its pushing buttons. and animations is just pushing and pulling how is that not easier :laughing:.
-I don believe animation is about special effects at all infact I think the best animation ive sceen had been in the aristocats becuase of the scratchy natural look:D.

zanekohler

06-18-2009, 01:34 PM

I feel there are factors that are easier and harder in both depending on what you are doing. There are times I want to drop the mouse because I could just get it done so much quicker via pencil. At the same time there are moments with the pencil I wish I could hit control Z! :laughing: . In my experience through Animation Mentor they go about it in a very traditional method. There are are a lot of similarities in the way they are training us. They even have a class with Eric Goldberg doing a traditional lesson on paper. All the same rules from his lesson transfer over. For me personally when I am neck deep in animating weather it be Pencil or computer my mind is focused on the same things... I get that same rush when I see the end result come to life. Both if done right are about using the same principles of animation. Both require an understanding of the same mental thought process to create believable animation. To me that is where one of the most difficult parts in animation is. Understanding your shot in your head and properly having the knowledge to translate it to paper or pixels. Everyone of course based off of their own experiences will ultimately decide what they like best.

asifaarchive

06-18-2009, 01:58 PM

ASIFA- I instantly knew who this sketch was of too
http://www.animationarchive.org/index.html

Believe it or not, at the Lion King reunion, not a single person could identify the sketch. Animation has a short memory.

jeremyhopkins

06-18-2009, 11:01 PM

If I was going to fight to reinvent animation, I had to reinvent how I approach the battle. Just doing good work myself wasn't enough. The whole animation field needs reinvigorating. So now I'm pouring it into the kids, giving them a resource for self-study and filling it with all of the inspirational reference and art instructional material that the golden age animators had. Schools aren't teaching it any more and the old guys are all dead. The kids have to work it out on their own. It's just been a few years, but already, we are seeing hope for a new generation of animators to pick up the torch and carry it a lot further than my generation of animators ever did.

The asifa site is an amazing resource and I'm grateful that you've dedicated so much time to preserving the artists from the golden age. Our generation is lucky in some ways and unlucky in others but we are fortunate to have access to so much great reference which isn't tied to a specific studio or style. The Annies is another very valuable addition to animation since it is a rare opportunity where the artists are appreciated for their effort & talent. It gives me hope that no matter what happens, that the legacy associated with classic work will never be forgotten and we'll never face a complete demise of hand drawn animation.

3D is remarkably easier and thats why companys like it but is it even a form of art,well no not at all.- with the technology continueing its path into the future we wont even be givin the task to animate if we wanted to, Its probably all going to be automated and its going to be a sad time for 3d animators.
John, if you're referring to mocap that is transferred to a cg rig without any thought or analysis, I'd agree with you. This would lead to a downfall in competent actors/animators. Though this is no different from rotoscoping a scene without thought or insight into the character being animated. This does not happen at Pixar/Disney, Bluesky or Dreamworks. It did happen with Monster House, and continues to happen with some live action hybrids as well as with some video games. I would agree with you that the acting in the latter is not as successful as a performance that has been tweaked by an animator who knows entertainment. You might get less enjoyment from tweaking a curve in a graph editor but the talent that goes into making a successful performance is the same regardless of medium. If it wasn't, studios would have a much easier time recruiting for new animators and no one would need a demoreel to demonstrate their ability to act. One would also expect if 3d animation is so easy, it would cost less to produce but it doesn't (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=up.htm" rel="nofollow). The ability to draw well & act is unique and it's a huge challenge to develop these skills but the talent to act with a computer or clay figure is equally special. Whether someone enjoys a cg performance or not is subjective but lets not discount the talent involved in these productions.

arif

06-20-2009, 12:42 AM

i am agreed ..

my prediction is 2d is coming back more effectively.....its just a matter of time...cause, people still loves handy craft art...there are lots of soft were which can be produced painting by the artist...but..people want to see that an artist is painting on canvas...i am not against on 3d...but, still now it is so pleasant when i see an artist is drawing on paper...rather than to see someone is rigging on the character!!!...i can still remember when i saw Glen Keane is drawing Tarzan(now, i have a great opportunity to see Don Bluth`s Drawings)..it gave me lots of pleasure and strength to hold my dreams.....2d is living in the lots of artists heart and it will remain until artist throw away the pencil.....but, i know..there are millions of people out there who wants to hear and listen the sound of pencil when it contacts on paper......

Arif:)

marji4x

07-16-2009, 08:39 AM

It's all about story, story story! Good stories have always drawn a crowd, regardless of the medium. And coupled symbiotically with that is telling the story WELL (i.e. good writing).

But that being said, I do think there is a certain draw to 3D that appeals to a wider audience. I think this is why even a very bad 3D movie will do better than a mediocre 2D one. 2D has to work harder to overcome society's boredom with it or something. I don't think it's just that 3D is newer and flashier...I think there is a nice appeal to it, especially when it's done well.

AND now I have to spend the rest of the thread admitting that I actually love 2D more and think nothing will ever replace it ;D

In college when everyone was telling me "2D is dead! You won't have a job when you graduate!" I had to say "Well then I'll live under a bridge but I'll animate in 2D or I'll starve!"

Fortunately the resurgence of Flash means that I didn't have to starve :)

That's one cheap workaround they found anyway. And it has some beautiful poossibilities as a program.

asifaarchive

07-16-2009, 03:17 PM

Moneyguns

07-16-2009, 03:59 PM

jeremyhopkins

07-16-2009, 08:24 PM

Jungle Book is another movie that is more about entertainment than plot and I think that would hold up if it was released today. Sadly for Iron Giant, having a great story and great writing doesn't always drive crowds to see the film. Film is a bizarre industry and no one knows for sure what will sell to an audience which makes investors jumpy.

Brad Bird via cartoon brew hits on the head with this comment:
"It’s also worth noting that (Wall Street) analysts are always bullish about any studios whose production slates are loaded with sequels, remakes, and “re-boots”. This particular poverty of imagination is absolutely mainstream thinking when it comes to businessmen, who are all about recognizing patterns of success that they assume are repeatable… no matter how often that very approach fails. They always try to copy the original THING rather than the CONDITIONS that allowed the original thing to come into being."

John K shared some of recent pitching experiences (http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2009/07/ideas-arenas-modern-way-to-write.html" rel="nofollow) that might shed some light on current issues not only with hand drawn animation but also with cg. Directing via committee, as explained earlier in this thread, is always more difficult - especially when the committee doesn't know what they want.

Rodney

07-16-2009, 09:30 PM

It's all about story, story story!

This is a popular battle cry and the success of its repetition has embedded it thoroughly but I'm going to go out on a limb and say its not all about story...

Its first and foremost about people like (and unlike) you and me.
And of course... we all have our stories. ;)

If we take away the association with the human element we've lost something very important.

So, for what its worth from me (what do I know?): Discover the characters. Then let them tell their stories.

Moneyguns

07-16-2009, 09:47 PM

This is a popular battle cry and the success of its repetition has embedded it thoroughly but I'm going to go out on a limb and say its not all about story...

Its first and foremost about people like (and unlike) you and me.
And of course... we all have our stories. ;)

If we take away the association with the human element we've lost something very important.

So, for what its worth from me (what do I know?): Discover the characters. Then let them tell their stories.

Yea, that's what I figured. I figured the characters are the most important part of any movie, comic, or whatever. Then it's the story. A perfect example would be Sin City. A terrible example would be Transformers.

Rodney

07-16-2009, 10:55 PM

A perfect example would be Sin City. A terrible example would be Transformers.

You may have to elaborate a little further on that aspect. Taste is subjective but I can certainly imagine agreeing. I confess I didn't particularly care for either movie but I found both entertaining.

I do think Sin City was more character driven iconically/stereotypically.

My wife always gives me a hard time when she sees the pictures I take. I tend to take pictures of the environment... buildings, trees. I'm facinated by the the texture and details I see. Of course I'm thinking I've got a really great image and then she crushes me with, "Where are all the people?" Where I may have a connection with the images (after all I took them) she has little to bring her into my experience and relate any relevancy. Throw in a few people though and she'll likely be interested.

This isn't to say you can't tell good stories without physically seeing people. It may be a little harder to tell a story showing only where they've been or where they eventually may be. Don always hammers away at getting that the Caricature; getting the essence of the character into the scene.

Of course the settings our characters live in certainly help define who they are and help us see them as 'real' people.

(I should be trying to steer this back on topic 'The Demise of 2D Animation '.)
What a ridiculous premise.
<insert guffas here>

Moneyguns

07-17-2009, 01:16 AM

You may have to elaborate a little further on that aspect. Taste is subjective but I can certainly imagine agreeing.

Yea, beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder and I understand everyone is entitled to there own opinion.

The characters in Transformers had hardly any character interaction. By the end of the movie you really have know idea what the characters personality is. Plus they don't have vary realistic personalities. In the first Transformers every word that comes out of Shia Lubuffs mouth is an argument and he's stressed out or frustrated whenever he talks.(no Joke) It makes it hard to really relate or get interested in the characters.

In Sin City every character has a completely unique and interesting personality. They also have the main characters narrating there own story's so you know exactly what their motives are and what they're thinking so you can connect and relate with them better.

Basically I belive people come for the story, but stay for the characters.

And I don't think 2D animation will ever DIE. HARD. with a VENGEANCE.

Rodney

07-17-2009, 02:21 AM

Thanks for more insight into your take on those movies.
I agree. For me to talk about Transformers would probably allow it to recieve more screen time than its worth. Cool robots though. ;)

Winsor McCay reportedly railed on his contemporaries for all but destroying animation. He probably thought it'd die with him, no?

When Walt Disney died how many people wrang their hands in dispair and said, 'Whoa is us, its all over'?

When (Corporate) Disney pulled their recent stunt did anyone really think that was the end of the art?

Like the drawing of lines in straights and curves the art of animation will always have its share of ebbs and flows.

Don Bluth

07-17-2009, 02:51 PM

It depends on what you mean by "story". The best animated films have very weak or basic stories. Pinocchio would fail just about every screenwriting test you could put it to. But it has a visual flow and momentum and uses contrasts in mood and visual color and style to carry the audience through its running time. Visual flow is MUCH more important than plot in animated films.

Robert Towne would disagree strongly with what you are saying. There is no doubt that the visuals are important but unless you, as a member of the audience, can see yourself up on the screen by identifying with some character and what he/she is going through, the experience will be less than satisfying. Graphics will only hold my attention for 20 minutes, tops! Personally, I want to know something about the human condition.
I believe that one of the reasons Classical Animation has fallen on its face is because it has a tradition to be comedic, cute or JUST graphic. Robert Towne also suggests animation should be written as if it were to be shot in live action; any other approach to the animated film is ridiculous. Interesting idea, don't you think? I tend to agree with him if the animated piece is anything longer than half an hour.

marji4x

07-17-2009, 02:55 PM

Graphics will only hold my attention for 20 minutes, tops!

I agree. I went and saw a Final Fantasy movie and was riveted when I saw the incredible hair and skin textures...the beauty was enthralling....so I was very surprised about 10 minutes later when it got old and I was bored because the story stank. I didn't care what happened.

On the other hand I can watch something so badly animated it makes my teeth hurt and yet enjoy, laugh, cry, and come back for more!

asifaarchive

07-17-2009, 07:28 PM

Robert Towne would disagree strongly with what you are saying. There is no doubt that the visuals are important but unless you, as a member of the audience, can see yourself up on the screen by identifying with some character and what he/she is going through, the experience will be less than satisfying.... Robert Towne also suggests animation should be written as if it were to be shot in live action; any other approach to the animated film is ridiculous. Interesting idea, don't you think? I tend to agree with him if the animated piece is anything longer than half an hour.

I actually believe that character is more important than story... When I use the word "story", I mean "plot"... the continuity of "stuff that happens". There is no reason that the plot has to make sense. Hitch****'s North by Northwest is a perfect example of a basically plotless movie that still flows and contrasts well. (No one in the audience is wondering who exactly it is in that crop duster!)

As for writing animated features as scripts, every single golden age animator I ever met said that it is impossible to "visualize" in words. They tried it in the early days at Disney and it didn't work. Walt himself says on the Disneyland TV show "The Story of Dogs" that the difference between writing live action films and writing animated films is that animation is written with drawings, not words. Scripts tend to lead to plot and dialogue- the two aspects of storytelling that are aspects that run dead last when coming up with a list of important aspects of the story for an animated film.

Personally, I think that the current trend toward writing animation in script form is one of the reasons modern animation pales in comparison to classic animation.

Rodney

07-17-2009, 07:35 PM

Graphics will only hold my attention for 20 minutes, tops!

This aspect fascinates me.
Having had your experience in film I'm certain you've experienced this a lot.
I'm sure crafting stories with this attention span in mind has got to be challenging enough. There is a point of exhaustion we'll all reach no matter how interested we are.

This is yet another reason why 'Character First' is important.
If we care enough about the character it'll keep us hanging on even where their story alone isn't enough.

Ever been bored, hurt or scared by someone you care a lot about?
When we want to be involved, to make and keep important connections with 'things' care about we'll sacrifice a lot.

Caring about who these characters are is pretty important stuff.

Rodney

07-17-2009, 09:03 PM

Personally, I think that the current trend toward writing animation in script form is one of the reasons modern animation pales in comparison to classic animation.

Hey Steve,
Echo of thanks for all the time and effort you've devoted to supporting animation!

Isn't it ironic that filmmaking as a whole has truly benefited from adapting the visual storytelling (storyboards) that the animation industry invented.

The folks at Pixar gets this. While they heavily rely on the script it seems obvious how much they value the visual shorthand that they know must go with it.

Is the trouble with scripting one of storycrafters trying to pack entirely too much extraneous material that doesn't properly advance the story into it? If not, what is it that you think would reverse that trend.

Don Bluth

07-18-2009, 12:18 PM

I actually believe that character is more important than story... When I use the word "story", I mean "plot"... the continuity of "stuff that happens". There is no reason that the plot has to make sense. Hitch****'s North by Northwest is a perfect example of a basically plotless movie that still flows and contrasts well. (No one in the audience is wondering who exactly it is in that crop duster!)

As for writing animated features as scripts, every single golden age animator I ever met said that it is impossible to "visualize" in words. They tried it in the early days at Disney and it didn't work. Walt himself says on the Disneyland TV show "The Story of Dogs" that the difference between writing live action films and writing animated films is that animation is written with drawings, not words. Scripts tend to lead to plot and dialogue- the two aspects of storytelling that are aspects that run dead last when coming up with a list of important aspects of the story for an animated film.

Personally, I think that the current trend toward writing animation in script form is one of the reasons modern animation pales in comparison to classic animation.

What I've managed to figure out over the years after producing twelve animated feature films (good or bad) is that character and plot is like saying, "which comes first, the chicken or the egg?" The jury is still out on that one. Is it the personality of the character that causes the unfurling of events or is it the events that cause the character to react.

When one character's philosophy collides with another character's philosophy, conflict develops. In simplified words, the tradition of theater as described by Joseph Campbell in his book, The Hero's Journey, is the story of a hero's encounter with an unfamiliar world which ultimately stimulates his/her own growth. The hero sallies forth to meet the enemy.

I fully recognize that there are plotted stories and unplotted stories; Bambi and Alice in Wonderland in the animated world are examples of unplotted stories. There will be Blood and Full metal Jacket are examples of unplotted stories in live action. Personally, I believe that a movie can only be as interesting as its villain factor. Even with graphics and visual effects, no matter how spectacular they are, will have to continue to crescendo throughout the movie or the audience gets bored. How long can one watch fireworks on 4th of July without wondering if he/she hasn't seen it all in the first five minutes. In an animated film, the hero, plotted or unplotted, must be subjected to increasing conflict and tension to hold the audiences' interest.

A script is written with words. Hundreds of classical novelists were brilliant at painting pictures with words; Tolstoy, Kipling, Proust, Hawthorn, Melville, Hemingway, just to name a few. When the script is translated into visual pictures by a storyboard artist it changes its form from words to pictures. A script serves as a foundation upon which to build interesting visuals much like the framing of a house precedes the hanging of the wallpaper. If the storyboard artist begins the whole process of plot by drawing pictures, he/she will have a tendency to ramble. It will be like a boat that has no rudder. Furthermore, everyone on the team will fall in love with some of the storyboard drawings or worse yet, will not say what they really feel because of the political environment.

During Walt's reign as king of animation, the control of story/plot elements were in his head and most of his staff will admit that they could not guess where he would take them next. This was told to me by Ken Andersen who was there the entire time. Essentially, the scripts were in Walt's head. After Walt died in 1966 and his crew continued to make films in the draw-it-don't-script-it philosophy, but the films quickly descended into a recognizable formula until the studio hit bottom with The Black Cauldron. Disney recovered from this with the production of "The Little Mermaid' and the stimulus came from two very talented men, Howard Ashman and Alan Menken who came from a Broadway Musical background. They re-emphasized the importance of the script and this did not hamper the development of visual continuity with the storyboard artists.

OwenWelsh

07-18-2009, 02:04 PM

I have seen hundreds of films and countless animated films. After watching each film I have decided which ones I like and which ones I don't like. I am not an experienced film maker like Don, only a critic. Here's my take on film making, animated or not. In this post I take the perspective of the demanding audience. "Give me what I want, or I'll walk out on your film."

Back when I was in high school my English teacher once asked us all a single question. "Why to people go to see movies?" What and intriguing question I thought. I began to write, "We just go, it's what we do when we are bored. It's just something to pass the time." Oh no, that's not it at all. I ended up writing something like, "It's the escape! We want to escape our boring lives and be taken on a journey to unknown worlds." With a boy of limited life experiences this is all I could come up with.

Now, years later I know the truth. We go to movies to learn something honest about ourselves, something we relate to, something that reminds of something personal -- the human condition. In this search on screen we want honesty and truth revealed to us in an entertaining way. When I say entertaining, I don't mean it has to be funny, it just needs to delivered in a way, to name a new, that has intensity, enthusiasm and understanding. If this understanding / epiphany or familiar experience isn't the connecting thread throughout your film I believe the emotional impact will be very weak and your film wont have that resonating feeling of a lasting classic.

The written script must come first then the drawings. On the topic of characters and plot, yes I believe they are very important. They are not more important than the message you will walk out of the theater with they merely support it. The ending or resolution of your film is the most important. This is what the audience will walk out of the theater with. That list bit of dialogue, that last image. To successfully deliver this ending message, don't write a character or plot that isn't in you. If you haven't experienced this character or situation first hand, don't write it. We must write from life, just as we draw from it. To not do this I believe is dishonest and your character/plot will come out unrealistic and we simply wont care about what happens your character. Do your homework.

Right now this can all sound confusing in a world that monetarily praises films like Transformers and other CG blockbusters that have paper thin substance but loads of spectacle. People don't know what they want until you show it to them. We must decide, do we want to make art or money? You have a choice. There must be a balance right? There is. However I think if we compromise for money or marketing strategy little by little you will erode the integrity of your film. In this case, you might make MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ? a successful film in the eyes of investors, but a derivative, imitative and unmemorable film. Be brave and always compromise for the art and integrity of your film and with a little luck you might have a classic on your hands. A film that will survive the test of time. Easier said than done, I know, the man with the money makes all the rules.

Rodney

07-18-2009, 05:26 PM

Disney recovered from this with the production of "The Little Mermaid' and the stimulus came from two very talented men, Howard Ashman and Alan Menken who came from a Broadway Musical background. They re-emphasized the importance of the script and this did not hamper the development of visual continuity with the storyboard artists.

Thoroughly studying the genesis of 'The Little Mermaid' would be an education.
Its with that movie that I turned from an focus on comic books to animation. I went to see it a couple times by myself because I couldn't get anyone else interested in going. I drew and drew and drew... xerox'd drawings onto overlays... painted them on the back. Like Pooh going for a honey pot I was stung hard by the animation bug.

There are so many elements of the Little Mermaid that make it work; Engaging characters, wonderful songs, memorable lyricks that carry the story forward, a villian we can all love to hate... plot twists and turns that keep you guessing.

Looking back on the film there are a considerable amount of flaws; inconsistency in drawing and backgrounds perhaps the most pronounced. But it wasn't jut me that was captivated. The entire world took notice and was swept along.

I find it exciting to see Ron Clements and John Musker involved in Disney's supposed return to hand drawn animation via 'The Princess and the Frog'.

I find Ron and John get max credit for bringing Alan Menken and Howard Ashman on. Check out this quote from www.jakefriedman.net (http://www.jakefriedman.net/writings/112006-Mermaid_2.html). In a way it picks up where Don's narrative drops off in his post up above. Note where I've emphasized the claim that collaborative script for animation hadn't really been done. He's hedged a little so there is something more there to study but that's why I place emphasis on this one.

“We worked on The Black Cauldron and shared some of the frustrations with that. I think we have the same sensibility – we’re about the same age, we’re both from the Midwest, we have the same cultural influences. But I asked John if he was interested in collaborating on a script. It hadn’t really been done before, but we found that we have different strengths and weaknesses.”

Their writing process is a portrait of true collaboration. “Once we have the basic story worked out, John begins the script-writing process, in long hand on a legal pad, free form and improvisational. He writes scenes over and over again, including dialogue and visual things, and he does this fairly quickly. When I read it, I go though it and type it up, editing it and sometimes re-writing it. But he doesn’t see what I do until the script is finished, and when he reads it, it’s been so long that it’s almost fresh for him.”

There are lots of lessons to learn from that movie.

Now it is true that 'The Little Mermaid' isn't everyones cup of tea but who can argue with the fact that it helped reinvigorate animated movies in the theater and resonated profoundly throughout the animation industry.

Rodney

07-18-2009, 05:52 PM

A side note on technology here:

In the article on 'The Little Mermaid" that I linked to above there is a note about the tides turning on animation technology. The article states, “The film was the last to use hand-painted cels." After that film Disney's cel painters shifted over to using CAPS computer painting technology.

While few would care to go back to painting on the back of cels (its hard!) a great tradition was set aside in that transfer of technology.

While my own attempts at understanding what animation was all about was confined to projector overlays I think every animator should paint at least one cel with real paint in their lifetime. Who knows what that revelation might bring to the art.

Moneyguns

07-18-2009, 09:02 PM

Moneyguns

07-18-2009, 09:13 PM

To successfully deliver this ending message, don't write a character or plot that isn't in you. If you haven't experienced this character or situation first hand, don't write it. We must write from life, just as we draw from it. To not do this I believe is dishonest and your character/plot will come out unrealistic and we simply wont care about what happens your character. Do your homework.

What if you have a boring life?
I'm not talking about my self and I know your world is what you make of it.
But really, what if?

Rodney

07-18-2009, 11:19 PM

What if you have a boring life?
I'm not talking about my self and I know your world is what you make of it.
But really, what if?

I've met few people who really have boring lives.
They've usually just convinced themselves that they do.

Some of their stories might be a bit hard to tell and even harder to turn into an animated film that a large number of people would want to go to but what if you took that boring life and transformed it through the art of exaggeration?

I can't quite buy into the theory that you can only tell a good story from experience but its got to help immensely to have something from the real world of experience to ground the characters into.

Experience is an interesting thing but its not always found where we'd expect to find it. If we fall deeply enough into a good book, or a piece of music we can experience change. For good or worse, such things can transform you.

This gets back to what Don says about Caricature.

asifaarchive

07-20-2009, 07:06 PM

What I've managed to figure out over the years after producing twelve animated feature films (good or bad) is that character and plot is like saying, "which comes first, the chicken or the egg?" The jury is still out on that one. Is it the personality of the character that causes the unfurling of events or is it the events that cause the character to react.

From the beginning of animation through the early sixties, just about all animated films were written by coming up with a character and general situation (premise) and allowing the artists to discover the details through free ideating. This was called the "gag session". When the ideas were all thumbnailed out, the story man and director would create an outline which connected all of the gags into a basic continuity. That simple structure and pile of idea sketches was then given to a storyboard artist to work out cinematically on a storyboard.

This process produced not only great features like Pinocchio and Peter Pan, but great shorts like the Bugs Bunny and Popeye cartoons. It allowed animation to define itself as an art form separate from live action filmmaking and took it to heights it's never recaptured. The period of time when stories were written in drawings by artists is now called the "golden age". With Jungle Book, Disney started bringing script writers on board. About the same time, Hanna Barbera began writing their cartoons using scripts. It's been downhill since then.

The majority of the great stuff that's been produced in the past forty years has had extensive visual development in the storyboard stage. Even if scripts were used, story artists were free to throw out the script and work out the flow visually. The best story artists do just that. A written outline giving the general continuity is MUCH more useful to a storyboard artist than a dialogue heavy script punctuated with vague descriptions of unanimatable action written by someone who never drew a drawing in their life.

The solution to the sad state of affairs in animated storytelling doesn't lie in imitating live action techniques... that's what has dragged animation down to the literalism and blandness that it suffers from today. The answer to the problem can be found in studying the process used to create the films we all consider masterpieces and classics of the medium- the films of the golden age. It's no surprise that animation today is a pale memory of classic animation. We've abandoned the techniques that Walt Disney, the Fleischers and the great Warner Bros directors worked so hard to develop for us.

Today it seems like all types of animated films are made basically the same way Filmation and Hanna Barbera made cartoons in the dark ages of animation.

Rodney

07-20-2009, 08:07 PM

Thanks for the reply Steve.

I understand your position but respectfully disagree with you.
It does make a difference though what we are placing under the microscope.

It's been downhill since then.

If I was smart enough to do it I'd argue with you. ;)

I wonder how much of the comparison between old and new is one of nostaglia.

While there is always room for improvement (in some cases considerable improvment) I find I can't watch an modern day animated film such as Lion King and even remotely begin to see things as you do. I dare say that film was superior to the old world in terms of storytelling.

Don't forget, the golden age produced its far share of less than excellence too.

The solution to the sad state of affairs in animated storytelling doesn't lie in imitating live action techniques... that's what has dragged animation down to the literalism and blandness that it suffers from today. The answer to the problem can be found in studying the process used to create the films we all consider masterpieces and classics of the medium- the films of the golden age.

Barring some of the wording here I can agree with you.

While its popular to castigate Hanna Barbera et al for the work they produced, that too is animation. There is a lot to learn from that era too. A generation certainly grew up loving that animation too.

Its good to look back. Thats an important thing to do.
But innovation starts in the here and now and presses into the future.
The masters of the golden age studied the past too. Then they rolled up their sleeves, got busy and did what they had to do.

Addendum: I was amazed when I saw E.G. Lutz's book 'Animated Cartoons', originally published in 1920. Here was the book Walt Disney himself checked out from the library, referred to and used. Between the pages of its covers it is evident that much of animation was already understood. Walt plussed that.

jeremyhopkins

07-21-2009, 05:12 AM

[QUOTE]The majority of the great stuff that's been produced in the past forty years has had extensive visual development in the storyboard stage. Even if scripts were used, story artists were free to throw out the script and work out the flow visually. The best story artists do just that. A written outline giving the general continuity is MUCH more useful to a storyboard artist than a dialogue heavy script punctuated with vague descriptions of unanimatable action written by someone who never drew a drawing in their life.

It's an interesting debate and it seems like both have their benefits. In my limited experience with television it seemed like the worst scripts came from people who had a live action background and couldn't visualize the scene for animation. It also felt like the scripts were a choking point in production where the people funding the show couldn't grasp the visual concept unless there was some accompanying dialogue or noise. Then they couldn't read the storyboards unless it was cut into an animatic. It is a great example of how production overpowers creativity and allows very little freedom to build on the initial idea. In this sense, I can agree that scripts won't produce the best work.

If the person writing the script understands animation and can visualize unique opportunities for entertainment, the result can be a success. I agree that it would most likely be more literal and that might not be for everyone. It is unfortunate to see the old process go away though. Both could co-exist and be used when appropriate, as Steve mentioned, but the golden age process requires a lot of skill, talent and trust. I think its easier for studios to trust when they have something in their hands.

Road to Perdition and No Country for Old Men are a couple modern films that strike a nice combination between visual storytelling and supportive dialogue. Road to Perdition is closer to an animated film in the sense that it allows scenes time to breath without unnecessary exposition.

Rodney

07-21-2009, 08:21 AM

In my limited experience with television it seemed like the worst scripts came from people who had a live action background and couldn't visualize the scene for animation.

No doubt scripts heavy on dialogue?

I really have no industry experience so I'm at a disadvantage.
I do know that there are similar problems in other media (comic books for instance).

This is an overly simplistic example but I've seen it.
The stage is set for action but dialogue drives the scene.

Guy: I think I'll go.
Girl: No, please don't leave.
Guy: Its too late I've already opened the door.
Girl: <desparately> You... could close it for me.
Guy: <looking confused, exits out the doorway, turns to face the girl and closes the door between them>
Girl: <yelling> That's not what I meant!

Okay... bad example.
But hopefully you won't see that in a script.

LordDirk

07-26-2009, 02:03 PM

I don't know if this has been covered yet, but I do have some good news. As some of you may know Disney had planned to cut its 2D department entirely. A Horrible thought I know. Thankfully John Lasseter came in and held off that decision. Now Disney has Princess and the Frog coming out. No doubt you have seen the trailers. I recommend everyone go and see that, if not because it's a great showcase of Disney 2d animation and influence from Pixars story telling, then to fund 2D animation movies.

Money talks, and if more people see this film at the box office Disney will want to fund more 2D projects. In my opinion at least.

This film has allot of great old animators on it, and its evident when you watch some of the amazing music scenes or character studies.

Anyhoo, that's my 2 cents. :)

TDolce

07-29-2009, 10:53 AM

I will definitely visit our local theater and watch it.

To me,...it just boils down to "acting".

So many of these movies coming out in CGI have wonderful graphics and animation, but lack soul and heart. That comes from acting and the emotion that is derived from it.

I remember reading somewhere where Disney would hire young actors and actresses to come in and simply dance, yell, sob, scream and laugh so that the animators could study their emotions and body movements related to those emotions.

Don mentioned that animators should be required to take acting classes and attend plays to study the human emotions. I agree 100%!!!

I don't mean to broad brush this as their have been some recent CGI movies that have done well in finally capturing the soul and the heart needed to make a great story, but if a 2D feature can come back in and have the heart and soul sandwiched between its key frames, you will see a revival right behind it. Many people will probably not be able to place their finger on it and fully grasp why they loved the film, but once they experience it again (a real story with emotion) they will demand more of it.

This seems to hold true in every genre and every medium. If it "touches" your soul and reaches your heart, (whether through humor, drama or action)
you will always be attracted to it.

This is why some old programs on television succeeded with very few effects and flashy sets where as others which seemingly had all of the flash and hype failed miserably. The story must have heart. Without it, it's just film on a reel.

LordDirk

07-29-2009, 01:20 PM

Hmmm, I don't know so much about this.

I don't think that acting is the problem with 3D films. Many 3D animators follow the very same processes that 2D animators go through when figuring out how to act out a scene. I will even go as far as saying that 3D animation has an advantage when it comes to acting because with 3D you can jump right in and begin posing your scene, where as with 2D you have to draw every frame.

I think that it comes down to appeal. 2D is a more graphic medium and as such you can play with things like brush strokes, pump shapes, etc. With 3D you are given a very stiff but somewhat pliable puppet. It may be an advanced computer puppet, but it's a puppet just the same. You can't make an appealing shape or mass that is appealing if it fights against the construction of your model. In 2D you can relate lines to each other, work with line weight, make masses fat and pudgy and play with the shapes of the eyeballs. You can see this in any of the old Disney animations like "Snow White" and anything with Mickey Mouse in it. Freddie Moore was blessed with appeal, every dwarf in Snow White has plump cheeks, baby eyes, and lines that relate to each other. I have yet to see a 3D animation that captures that same appeal.

Acting wise I still think 3D can do it just as well. From Toy Story's Woody and Buzz, to Blue Skys Robots and Ice Age. The Incredibles from Pixar has some of the widest range of acting, from very elastic to very subtle. But appeal wise, even though I love the incredibles, they will never have the same presence of heart and appeal that Pinocchio has.

Those are my 2 cents.

TDolce

07-29-2009, 02:22 PM

I see what you're saying,..but perhaps I didn't position myself correctly. What the CGI seemed to focus on more was the "look" and the "realism" more so than the story. Since their isn't as much room for the over exaggeration of poses as their is in 2D by nature,...there HAS to be something to make up for this lack of expression. It is emotion. It seems to be lacking in most (not all) of the CGI movies that I've seen. "UP" seems to be the latest exception as I think it captured alot of emotion and the story was wonderful. It's one of the few CGI movies that struck a chord with me emotionally. The characters seemed to be acting and not just looking cool. It was refreshing.

LordDirk

07-29-2009, 06:48 PM

Again I have to differ. A great story doesn't have to deal with 2d or 3d. Great stories can also come in the form of oral, written, or film mediums. What you're saying is that the tool to which the animators use affects their ability to make good performances or tell great stories.

Now to a degree I will agree with you, this being in the form of story telling poses. The poses themselves can be created in either medium, but the 2D graphic medium allows the artist to distort the form further to create a stronger gesture. For instance, lines on a characters outfit will angle up towards the point of interest or wherever the most weight is being put. In 3D this is most often controlled with a cloth modifier, with little or no control given to the artist.

Now that is simply talking about the graphic quality of 2D. Beyond that 3D has come to the level where it can exaggerate almost to the level of 2D, with the exception of completely losing form, for example a character turning into a big red box or a circle or some other form of graphic shape. Dreamwork's Madagascar is a good example of just how stretchy 3D can be.

So I acknowledge the graphic quality of 2D allows for that extra push in creating appealing and stronger poses. That said I do not believe that the majority of 3D animation is focused on the "Look" rather than the story, simply by being a 3D film. If anything Pixar is a great testament to amazing story telling through the computer medium.

The novelty of 3D is wearing out, and yes people can still rake in lots of dollars because they have great special effects, but that isn't due to the new wave of 3D films. Be it clay animation, props, or 3D magic, there will always be films that sacrifice story for eye candy.

TDolce

07-29-2009, 07:48 PM

All I'm saying is I saw a steady decline in good storytelling in 2D just before the CGI scene hit and I have only seen very few CGI productions with a solid story too.

We just disagree on what we have both seen at the theaters. That's ok. Very few CGI movies have appealed to me...and it had nothing to do with the technology....I just thought they were lifeless....period.

Its not that the technology (CGI) is lifeless,..it's the writers behind it. This too applies to 2D and any other genre.

If a really great story with great emotion will come out in 2D,....it will be a hit.
2D needs this badly.

Just my opinion,...and nothing more.

UP,...was an exception. It was wonderful!!

2D is not dead,...it just needs a blockbuster story to hit the theatres. I think 2D and CGI can co-exist just fine.

LordDirk

07-29-2009, 08:03 PM

It's good to get down to specifics, sometimes vague statements can lead others to read into the wrong things about what one has said. So it's not that you think the 3D genre has worse acting, or focuses on look rather than story, but that the medium itself feels "lifeless" as you put it. I do agree that there is a certain "dead" effect that it has a hard time shaking.

I think that its funny when within the medium, movies like 'Toy Story' felt much more alive than say "Shrek" and yet Shrek was the more realistic of the two. Even so, neither of those two films can replicate the life that "Dumbo" has on the screen. Again I equate this to appeal and the overall range that 2D allows the artist to play with.

Indeed I can't think of too many blockbuster hits for 2D as far as features go. Though I do think that "Brother Bear" and "Spirit" did quite well, and we can't forget "Spirited Away".

"Princess and the Frog" I am sure will revitalize your hope in 2D feature films. I can't tell you how many great old Disney animators have been working on it. From what I've seen, it's going to be great!

If you really want to see what 2D and 3D can do, then I'd recommend checking out the short animation circuit. Festivals like Ottawa, Platform, KAFI, and many others host a huge variety of films that have to really go through the ringer as far as story telling goes. Many of them employ new and innovative techniques that expand the medium.

Can someone back me up on this? Make sure that I'm not completely bollocks. ;)

TDolce

07-30-2009, 01:17 PM

"Princess and the Frog" I am sure will revitalize your hope in 2D feature films. I can't tell you how many great old Disney animators have been working on it. From what I've seen, it's going to be great!

I'm with you on this!! I know that many 2D animation fans will be holding their collective breath when this eventually gets released! I know I'll be cheering it on too! Sounds like it will be a return to the classic style of yesteryear! Glad to know they have put some resources behind it too.

jeremyhopkins

07-30-2009, 04:28 PM

Glad to know they have put some resources behind it too.
I think they were cautious since some of the clean up and ink and paint work was farmed out to Yowsaa and other places. Now they've laid off some of the hand drawn talent or transfered them to the Rapunzel team - Is this right Lord Dirk? - Cautious is understandable but I can't help feeling sorry for the talent when their unemployment insurance has run out - if there is EI.

Animation is a bizarre marriage of business and art. I don't think we can expect any company to save us. We have to be pro active in creating new solutions if we feel the industry doesn't represent our needs as artists. This doesn't necessarily mean being 100% altruistic because we need to pay for our rent and groceries but all of us have an internal compass and know when we have made the right choice. We can debate storytelling, acting, and style. Yes, rules and principals exist and we have had experiences that shape our tastes but these aspects are subjective. I don't believe they are the limiting the amount of hand drawn films.

Somewhere from the mid-90's to the mid-00's, someone noticed that cg films were making more money. It wasn't that hand drawn animation was making no money but the goal of a public company is the maximize profits for their investors. Eisner had a very loud, public feud with Pixar and decided to create their own division to create Toy Story(perhaps others) sequels if they(Pixar) decided to side with another company for distribution. In doing so he had to shift resources and explain to share holders why this is a good idea. Part of the propaganda was that nobody enjoyed hand drawn disney features which caused Roy Disney to form the 'Save Disney' shareholder revolt. The unfortunate side effect from the media attention is the belief among enthusiasts, students, professionals, some studios and schools that traditional animation died or is dead or is making a comeback. The truth is, it never went away. It might be more difficult now to get a hand drawn animation project off the ground because investors and producers have bought into the idea that cg is more profitable. As a timeline for the 2000's, here are some of the recent films:

The secret of Kells - 2009
Nocturna - 2007
Asterix and the Vikings - 2006
Home on the range - 2004
Triplets of Belleville - 2003
Brother Bear - 2003

Some of these films might not be to everyones' personal taste and no doubt each film has something that can be improved but as an example of production, I still think it's quite impressive. That doesn't include some of the unique television animation or work done in video games.

Traditional animation is not dead, it never died and as long as there are people who are willing to study and work to improve, we'll be living in a golden age of animation. The original classics are very special and they are a benchmark which I'm not sure if we can meet. We can only do our best and the result is left up to the audience to decide if we are successful or not.

Sorry for being a broken record but sometimes these discussions get so focused that we miss the big picture.

Rodney

07-30-2009, 05:51 PM

Very well said Jeremy. :)

Has it really been that long since Brother Bear?
Time sure does fly. It almost seems like it was last year.

LordDirk

07-31-2009, 09:31 AM

Heh, well I'm not sure how much liberty I have to speak on Disney's business practices.

What you say is true, if there was any a time when 2D was in danger then that was the 80s, and even then that was only in the majority of mainstream. Now had Disney gone completely to 3D then that would have been a terrible loss yes, thankfully it didn't. If 2D animation ever died, then we wouldn't have it around with us today.

I still stick by what I said about going to short film festivals though. The independent have far more freedom to explore new animation techniques, story telling styles, etc. It's true that features have more funding and teams of amazing animators, but as far as exploring the genre I think that watching short animated films is the best bet to find new and interesting ways to work with 2D, or 3D, or any animation for that matter.

Films like "Ryan", "the old man and the sea", "the cat came back" and many more really push what we thought of as character design, animation medium, story telling, etc.

johncbeggs

08-01-2009, 02:43 PM

If I were to create any such animated film one day I would use such sketchy lines as seen in the ARISTOCATS and 101 DALMATIONS , I believe once you start the cleanup process the quality of the animate film drops at-least 80%.

thats just my opinion

traditional animated films are not and should not attempt to look like a clear crisp 3D film becuase an animated film is art not a display.

sorry if anyone gets confused reading this :D

LordDirk

08-01-2009, 11:00 PM

Well you know that very same line style was actually done through the first computer clean up process that Disney used. I visited the ink and paint department and they still have much of the old clean up copy machines. They would scan in the images so that they could adjust the line weight to match with the rest of the film. Because there were so many different artists cleaning up the drawings at that time, there were a variety of line weights, the computer helped make them all relatively the same.

Now in the clean up process I do think that allot of things can get lost, but only if you have an inexperienced clean up artist. A lot of times a clean up artist will focus on the structure and anatomy of their character, where as the animator may have taken liberties with the anatomy and structure to have a better thrust or appeal in their drawing. An experienced clean up artist, who knows their fellow animators well, will clean up the roughs but keep the appeal or thrust of the drawing intact.

I do agree with making films more personal, I think that a lot is lost when a drawing is handed down through so many people. It does provide good jobs for animators though, so I'm torn on the subject.

What I think could bring that appeal in single animation drawings back would be a greater focus on line weight. Many clean up artists work with fine leads or very sharp pencils. A greater range of line weight I think would really make some of those drawings pop more. Also many line drawings of animated characters now share a similar color to their overall color scheme, where as in aristocats and 101 dalmatians they were sharp black lines.

Food for thought.

Rodney

08-02-2009, 03:55 PM

There are a lot of really smart people out there.
If only one or two were to innovate then 2D might be all the rage.
This isn't to say there hasn't been effort in that direction.

One place that could use some serious innovation is the theater.
The theater experience is ripe for innovation.
A trip to the movies should be a wonderful event, not just another day.

Innovation at the theater can be problematic.
Gimmicks and passing fads don't generally rate as innovation.

Take this question into consideration:
Why is it that after seeing a film in the theater we can't take a larger part of the film home with us?

I can understand some of the technical and distribution difficulties that would rise against this.
I can imagine the cries that would rise from DVD resale competition.
Stop making excuses and change the way we do business.

Everybody and their brothers cousin's uncle's niece has digital technolgy in their hands these days. Access that and adapt that to the theater.

Scarcity of quality hand drawn Disney films can be a good thing.
Exploit that fact.

Printed media isn't dead.
Give us more access.

Almost every kid in America wants to draw Disney characters.
Encourage them to draw.

Artists and Actors are looking for jobs.
Give them jobs.

Innovate.

Yeah... All this is very easy to say.
I'm focusing on Disney here because they are the defacto leader in the area.
If they don't innovate. It'll take more time and the transformation will have to wait for another day.

LordDirk

08-02-2009, 04:36 PM

I'm a bit confused as to what you are proposing. Most of these statements are awfully vague.

What do you mean by "take a larger part of the film home with us?"

I also don't see how a trip to the movies isn't a great experience. If you would like to try more of the dinner theater like experience then I think you'd have to market it as a novelty. People move at a much faster pace in this digital millennium we live in. Setting aside an entire afternoon and evening to see a film when normally it only takes a few hours would be a hard sales pitch to make. Especially if customers can go out and eat at the restaurant of their choice before seeing the movie anyways.

Do you mean that you'd like people to get a DVD of the film after they see it? If so then what would be the point of keeping a film in theaters if people will already be watching it in their home for a fraction of the price?

Also "Changing the way we do business" is easier to say than to execute. You'd have to think of what jobs you'd be providing, what jobs would have to be cut, would the profit be worth the change, does it have a practical value to the company? This is just to name a few.

I'm sorry, perhaps I am arguing against statements that you didn't make. The statements you have made are awfully vague and I would really like to know what specifically you are referring to as there may be some merit in what you say.

I eagerly await your reply.

Rodney

08-02-2009, 05:19 PM

A problem with stabbing at innovation is that by its very nature it will tend to be vague. If it wasn't it'd probably already be executed.

What do you mean by "take a larger part of the film home with us?"

I'm selectively grabbing a quote from you here but that's just because quoting your whole post doesn't make sense to me. You've raised some important considerations.

Of course the area in quotes I've left intentionally vague.
I'm not interested in my ideas here as much in other ways to innovate.

The most obvious response to it would be exactly what you state... grabbing a video on your way out of the theater. Most people would agree this wouldn't work very well on its face. What you'd take with you would have to be more unique than just a copy of the movie.

I haven't been in the US in over two years so I don't know what they are offereing in US theaters these days. I do know that some theaters are more innovative. Some theaters in Denver for example catered to an older audience with a bar and a place to meet and talk with friends. At the lower end most theaters cater to families that just want to see a good movie on the cheap.

The move to 3D these days appears to be in part to take audiences to a place they can't go outside the theater. In time however technology tends to seek its own level and will likely flow into the home theaters. As the 3D infrastructure needed to display these films isn't cheap this is likel to leave the low end up the creek without a 3D projector. I hope that innovation doesn't do more harm than good in theaters.

The point here... is that filmmakers and theaters are at least trying to be innovative. For that I want to be sure to give them credit.

Do you mean that you'd like people to get a DVD of the film after they see it? If so then what would be the point of keeping a film in theaters if people will already be watching it in their home for a fraction of the price?

Its important (if not impossible?) to make every experience unique.
If any company in the world knows this its got to be Disney.

But... have you been inside a Disney store lately?
Lots of junk there! (They keep it because apparently it sells)

Did you know that in most Disney Stores and in the Disney themeparks it may be impossible for you to buy a Disney video? Maybe they are there and I just can't find them?
Head over to the book section and find a good book on animation.
Um... do they even have a book section?

Do the Disney parks still have caricature artists?
When did silhouette cut outs feature in Disney films?

What is currently available represents unique experiences (which is good thing) but they lack a very important ingredient. They are completely divorced from the art of traditional animation. There are caricatures of caricatures of caricatures of the original animation and that isn't the same thing.

Can Disney return to the source of their original inspiration?
Well have to wait and see.

The Japanese have had some success in the theater arena.
It is common in Japan to be able to purchase a movie guide with highlights and information about the movie you've attended. If we've enjoyed the movie this booklet is something my family invariable purchases and takes with us. They have on display products related to the movies currently playing as well.

These innovations aren't for everyone (some people just wanna watch a movie) but the can and do provide a way to take the theater experience with you.

LordDirk

08-03-2009, 09:56 PM

But... have you been inside a Disney store lately?
Lots of junk there! (They keep it because apparently it sells)

Did you know that in most Disney Stores and in the Disney themeparks it may be impossible for you to buy a Disney video? Maybe they are there and I just can't find them?
Head over to the book section and find a good book on animation.
Um... do they even have a book section?

Do the Disney parks still have caricature artists?
When did silhouette cut outs feature in Disney films?

I have recently returned from Disneyland and a Disney store is right across the street from me, considering Disney Feature Animation is my place of work. In the Disney Store at the studio I indeed saw DVDs, I didn't at the theme park stores but then again I didn't go to many and it doesn't seem like it would make much money to put DVD's there anyways. The Disney theme park stores are there to market on the rides and attractions, so the majority of what you will see will be toys, dolls, and novelty attire.

I saw many caricature artists yes.
I don't know what the importance of the silhouette cut outs are, but I don't think I saw any.

There are caricatures of caricatures of caricatures of the original animation and that isn't the same thing.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.

Can Disney return to the source of their original inspiration?
Well have to wait and see.

Again I am confused. What exactly do you consider Disney's original source of inspiration to be? If it's fairy tales, then I think Princess and the Frog is a good indication that they are still following their roots.

These innovations aren't for everyone (some people just wanna watch a movie) but the can and do provide a way to take the theater experience with you.

Well taking a part of the movie experience home with you would be nice, I am guessing you mean as souvenirs. A problem I am having understanding what you are saying is not the fact that innovation is vague, but that you statements are vague. You make reference to Disney's original inspiration but don't state what that is, and I am sure many of us have different ideas on what that inspiration stems from.

But back to your point. Souvenirs are nice, I wouldn't mind a few here and there, but I still think that if a film is good enough that the experience itself should be enough. Films like "Toy Story", Hith****'s "Rear Window", "Citizen Kane", etc. do leave you with something. I am sure many of us, after watching a great movie at the theater, will still be running each scene through our head as we make our way home.

I guess my argument is that I think a movie should stand alone by itself. Once you introduce marketing in the form of souvenirs or objects to take home with you then it can become not so much about the film but about the objects associated and around the film. When I go to a movie I want to go for the simple experience of the film itself. Snacks are nice to have at hand, but anything more that may distract from the story I would have to be against.

Perhaps as novelty, but not mainstream. Each idea has merit, I figured you were talking about implementing something like that mainstream, to which I don't think it would work.

Then again, you never know until you try.

jeremyhopkins

08-04-2009, 12:13 AM

Guys, it's great that you're keeping the forum alive but keep in mind this is Don's thread, not a private discussion. I highly recommend checking the original post and the first few pages which covers, in broad strokes, most of the current conversation. Thanks, the discussion is appreciated but lets avoid talking in circles and getting bogged down in the minutia if possible.

LordDirk

08-04-2009, 09:26 AM

Rodney

08-05-2009, 12:23 AM

My inability to explain myself is really the only reason we've gone off topic here. My apologies for that.

The innovation I alluded to is the topic.
One of the reasons 2D is seen as 'dead' is because its been supplanted by other things. (no mystery there)

We are now much more likely to see the derivatives of Disney's animated artform than anything else; toys and souveniers.

To summarize what I think is on topic with regard to Don's original post:

- Disney is the defacto leader in traditional animation. Where they go traditional animation goes as well.
- Having more original art and animation in the public view (and in accessible places) is good for the art of traditional animation.

Now this does beg the question, if not Disney...who?

Obviously, 2D animation has taken a backseat to CG.

Definitely.

Everyone seems to have an opinion about why. Some say it's too expensive, which I think is baloney since 3D pictures have turned out to be more expensive than hand-drawn.

I agree with Don. The budgets should be available to compare and settle this once and for all.
It's a two edged sword though... deliver a traditionally drawn animated film too cheaply and you cut off your future financially. I'd guess there are a lot of companies that will undercut their competition just be in the industry.

Others say it is because the public has grown tired of 2D.

I don't buy that at all.
No one is delivering the (hand drawn) animated movies they want to watch.
(Exception? Did Disney's straight to video movies did pretty well financially? Critics don't like to include the kid's stuff but the fact remains that kids are a large percentage of the animation audience. But... importantly, they generally watch what you put in front of them.

Myself, I believe the fault lies in two areas. First, the 2D animation stories are not very well scripted; I know this from my own personal experience.

See earlier posts for some responses on this subject. (In particular the posts from Steve (asifaanimation)

Second, when all the live-action studios jumped into the animation business with no previous experience, they kept looking for cheaper ways to do things, and assumed the computers were the answer to that.

I've no personal experience here.
It seems reasonable that those entering animation would try to reduce costs in whatever way possible. The assumption that computers provide cost savings has been validated historically but most of that evidence deals with how computers cut costs in hand drawn productions. I haven't seen any direct comparison between that and a purely CG production. Correct me if I'm wrong but is staff/people still the biggest budget breaker?

I think 2D animation is due for a revival but it must be good box office material! Does anyone agree?

Agree!

All eyes seem to be on Princess and the Frog but that's not going to be enough. If other creators aren't already preparing for the revival we might as well call the whole thing off. I don't know of any other major players moving into the arena.

I'm confident that even without the big players in the game a revival of hand drawn animation will happen eventually. But how long will audiences wait for the independents to rise to the occasion? If no one else is still producing for the box office what other option is there for audiences other than CG?

Hopefully this is back on topic. :)

asifaarchive

08-05-2009, 01:18 AM

For a very good animated feature that is forward looking and exploits the medium well, see the recent French feature "Fear(s) of the Dark". It's only available at Blockbuster.

Rodney

08-05-2009, 01:55 AM

For a very good animated feature that is forward looking and exploits the medium well, see the recent French feature "Fear(s) of the Dark". It's only available at Blockbuster.

Hmmm... never heard of that.
I'll have to check that out.

I see the site/trailer here:
http://www.primalinea.com/pdn/

LordDirk

08-05-2009, 01:20 PM

All eyes seem to be on Princess and the Frog but that's not going to be enough. If other creators aren't already preparing for the revival we might as well call the whole thing off. I don't know of any other major players moving into the arena.

I'm confident that even without the big players in the game a revival of hand drawn animation will happen eventually. But how long will audiences wait for the independents to rise to the occasion? If no one else is still producing for the box office what other option is there for audiences other than CG?

Hopefully this is back on topic. :)

Well I wouldn't downplay the effect that a fully 2D animated Disney feature can have. Also I want to make sure that everyone is talking about 2D Classical animation instead of 2D animation in general, because 2D animation in other countries such as France and Japan is doing quite well. Films like Nocturna, Triplets of Bellville, and Secret of Kells just to name a few.

When films as small as "corpse bride" can lead to things like "Coraline" then I'm sure that a 2D feature of this quality, if marketed right, will definitely open the eyes of the audience to Classical 2D again.

OwenWelsh

08-05-2009, 01:37 PM

After working in the entertainment industry for a while I can tell you that the only thing that matters to these big companies are the numbers. 2D, 3D, video games, it doesn't matter. If The Frog Princess is a terrible story with forgettable characters but sells really well at the box office, there will be another film, and almost certainly sequels or spin-offs. However, if The Frog Princess is an exceptional movie, a real gem, and for whatever reason doesn't bring in the money at the box office, there might not be another. Its strange that it works that way, but its what I have observed over the years. You can shovel trash into the masses and if they gobble it up and this sends a message to the companies "MAKE MORE STUFF LIKE THIS, IT SELLS!!!" And that's all the stockholders want to hear.

Rodney

08-05-2009, 03:45 PM

Well I wouldn't downplay the effect that a fully 2D animated Disney feature can have. Also I want to make sure that everyone is talking about 2D Classical animation instead of 2D animation in general, because 2D animation in other countries such as France and Japan is doing quite well. Films like Nocturna, Triplets of Bellville, and Secret of Kells just to name a few.

Most definitely.
Like the threat of 'Secret of Nihm' back in the day films like the ones you mention serve as a warning to Disney... keep at it or you will be replaced.

Its almost impossible for those of us that love the old Disney classics to imagine Disney going away but that is the fate they'd suffer if they squander their heritage away.

Owen,
I can hear the ring of truth in what you are saying.
But how in the heck can we combat that?

I've heard people say 'Just don't buy that cr@p'.
But speaking from within the masses who wander from theate to theater looking for a good movie its not as simple as that. We watch what is put in front of us and when producing a classical animation takes several years to work its way through to us there is a lot of investment (from everyone) attached.

There seems to be a major gap between the films you mention coming from overseas and that you find at Disney. I find those critically acclaimed these films have a more limited appeal and distribution. Its easy to test this theory; everyone who has seen all three films (Nocturna, Triplets of Bellville, and Secret of Kells ) raise your hand. As of this moment I haven't.

I percieve the trend at Disney is to connect their films with the theme park, to leverage the stories and charactes from their films there.
Its hard for me not to see this connection growing exponentially with John Lasseter (former Jungle Cruise guide) at the helm. While some of this will be wonderful and help upgrade the old attractions there is a danger there. Critics almost universally castigate the commercialism of television animation. They'll likely do the same to Disney as well.

Films like Nocturna, Triplets of Bellville and Secret of Kells appear to be the antithesis of Disney's commercialism. That may also be one of the secrets to their success.

OwenWelsh

08-05-2009, 04:09 PM

Most definitely.
Like the threat of 'Secret of Nihm' back in the day films like the ones you mention serve as a warning to Disney... keep at it or you will be replaced.

Owen,
I can hear the ring of truth in what you are saying.
But how in the heck can we combat that?

Films like Nocturna, Triplets of Bellville and Secret of Kells appear to be the antithesis of Disney's commercialism. That may also be one of the secrets to their success.

Rodney, I've thought about this a lot and the only thing I can come up with is that we must take action and along with that, risk. We must give the industry some friendly competition and it must come from one of us. If we want better films then we must make them. We cannot rely on the studios. It won't be easy but as it was once said "Courage of the heart is very rare..."

As for the success of Nocturna, Triplets and Secret of Kells, this is something I was unaware of? Are you talking creative or commercial success? I have seen only Triplets, and what I saw was less than riveting.

Rodney

08-05-2009, 05:33 PM

As for the success of Nocturna, Triplets and Secret of Kells, this is something I was unaware of? Are you talking creative or commercial success? I have seen only Triplets, and what I saw was less than riveting.

I haven't seen any of theses films in their entirety so I'm not even qualified as a member of the audience to say. I'm talking about their critical acclaim more than anything.

In my experience when something recieves critical acclaim its likely I will NOT feel the same way. There is one exception that I can think of... the artwork. Generally if an animated film is praised I will enjoy the art even if I on't care for the storytelling. Still, it may be beautiful art but I'm more interested in the story. Is there a story in there somewhere that is worth the telling?

Whether my own or someone else's there truly is no accounting for taste.

This does support Don's premise that audiences are NOT tired of seeing 2D animation. But who can watch a film that isn't available?

LordDirk

08-05-2009, 06:00 PM

I find that the way to combat it is also the subject of this topic, and that is telling great stories. Take Pixar's "UP" for example, when it was in the making marketers warned that it wouldn't sell many products. Films make the majority of their income from selling products, that is why products and marketing are so important to feature films, it's how you pay for a multi-million dollar project.

Up may not have done the best right out of the box, but it has definitely held its own as the weeks went by. Most films will do great opening day if the marketing is strong enough, but films will resell more if the actual movie is good. But what makes a good movie? That's easy, Story. Story is the foundation of any film, from concept to character development. Pixar has a giant sign that says "Story First" and we can see that each of their films have inventive situations and great stories.

When Up was ready to release, marketing said that there wouldn't be a demand for UP products, and so didn't make many. As a result, after the film was released, they didn't have enough to meet demand. People will want to keep watching a film over and over, and buy products of a film if it touches them emotionally and takes them on a great journey.

Films that are marketed well, but don't have a good story will do well opening day, and perhaps for a few more showings after that, but they wont sustain as long as films with great story do.

As they say, have faith in the process. haha!

jeremyhopkins

08-06-2009, 12:07 AM

You can shovel trash into the masses and if they gobble it up and this sends a message to the companies "MAKE MORE STUFF LIKE THIS, IT SELLS!!!" And that's all the stockholders want to hear.

This has been my experience as well with television work. Almost every industry seems to be working in fear of financial failure and I've never felt the best decisions were made with fear as a motivator. One of the worst experiences is working as a paid per frame animator when the scripts, storyboards or designs are held up in production. I've found working in this system devalues animation staff. When animation is homogenized and produced as a widget, the people involved in production are easily replaced with new talent. Not only are the folks at the top making poor decisions, because they're not creatives focused on storytelling, but they've created a system where they can continue to make poor decisions. This hurts the people at the bottom without extraneous 'full time staff' expenditure. By devaluing and instilling fear that anyone could lose their job at anytime, nobody fights back so the only option is to leave. With the good people gone or the remaining ones overworked, why would anyone be willing to invest themselves in doing their top work?

My apologies if this sounds bitter since it's not meant to be a rant. Rather these are my observations from working at various studios across Canada. Actually, it's kind of funny and that's the way I like to look at life. Though if I were to do one thing to fix the industry, it wouldn't be a focus on content, it would be to appreciate the people and treat everyone as a valuable commodity - from janitors to storyboard artists - To do that would require a little more trust in talent and a little less fear of financial ruin.

LordDirk

08-06-2009, 03:31 AM

I agree that trust plays a very large part in making a good film or animation. Animation, be it commercials, movies, or television, is a very team oriented process. If there isn't trust, or excitement in the product, from animators to story artists, to directors, then the product will most likely fail or turn out mediocre. A good director isn't just good at making decisions about the story, but also must be good at keeping a team excited and engaged in the production.

When fear is the motivator and not excitement, then the product suffers. This isn't to say that you can create an environment without fear, or that fear doesn't have it's place in production. Fear is a hard deadline, or exploring uncommon ground. In that aspect Fear plays an important role of keeping people on their toes, but Fear can also be stifling. Fear that you aren't playing a decent role in production, or that the final product isn't going to be worth your effort.

The worst kind of fear is the fear that keeps people from taking chances, and that is what leads to allot of the mediocre films we see now days. Why take a chance at losing millions of dollars on a 'new' story or a new director when you can do the math and find out that there are already genres with fan bases that you can milk, and directors well known for bringing in profit? This is why we see so many sequels, and films based on books, comics, old TV shows, anything that already has a set fan base willing to see the film just by catching the title. Accountants, Marketers, and Executives don't want to risk their money on something new, or at least they will use the fan base films at low production cost to rake in profits and spend it on blockbusters or more experimental films.

There is a process to it all, and if we as animators, film makers, and above all story tellers, are to change this then we need to understand this process. In a business that is this seeded in our society we must notice that every decision that is made has a logical and profitable reason behind it. This may not be the best for storytelling, but it does pay salaries.

But how do you change a process that looks so good in the books? Would it be for the better, what would it cost us? Do we remember the golden age of film for all of its films, or just the few great ones out of a pack of mediocrity?

A few more questions to consider.

What role should 2D animation play in the future? How can we revitalize it as a medium and expand on what is already a strong foundation? How can one make great classical 2D animation, without making classical 2D animation?

food for thought. :)

jeremyhopkins

08-06-2009, 02:26 PM

Accountants, Marketers, and Executives don't want to risk their money on something new, or at least they will use the fan base films at low production cost to rake in profits and spend it on blockbusters or more experimental films.

My last few posts weren't meant to blame anyone for the current conditions. If we live in modern society, we all play the game. The benefits and problems are there for everyone. My only issue is when the production system, which was meant to serve the creative aspect, becomes so bloated that we forget why we showed up for work in the first place.
The solution is simple, take responsibility and build value in oneself.

LordDirk

08-06-2009, 03:17 PM

I guess I was looking at it from the director's point of view. I wasn't necessarily hoping on pointing fingers, but making the point that indeed that mind set usually comes from the marketing and buisness departments, and for good reason. Just as animators are prone to lose sight of story in favor of fun animation, or coders prone to focus on the physics of a game rather than the gameplay. There is a reason we animate, code, tell story, or whatever it is we do. It's because we love it, and that tends to lend us to favor one side over the other.

I take value in my work, but I wont lie, If a project isn't inspiring me, or exciting me, in fact if it is depressing me or the director isn't working well with the team, then I have a hard time giving it my all.

I believe that in this day and age that the marketing aspect has much more weight than it should.

Demon Lizardman

08-14-2009, 05:54 PM

I have to agree here. I am sick of those flash cartoons and those 3d cartoons. It seems like they're not trying at all. I miss those painted backgrounds and such. I also loved that stretchy animation Ren and Stimpy had, I now have to buy DVD's for entertainment or create my own. I also think that creating 2d animation is expensive is just a lazy excuse.

LordDirk

08-14-2009, 06:43 PM

I also think that creating 2d animation is expensive is just a lazy excuse.

Creating good 2D animation is expensive. Most 2d animated shows send off the majority of their animation to Korea and China. Even shows like "Batman the animated series" were mostly sent off, as were "Animaniacs" and "Scooby Doo", some more evident than others. While some of the episodes of these shows were well animated (the ones done in house) the majority of them were poor to mediocre at best. A sad fact is that western animators cost more to employ than outsourced animation. To do a show that is entirely great animation would be very expensive, from the extra cells, to testing time, to the people you employ.

I'm just trying to justify and explain. This is not to say I wouldn't love to see the return of a series with such love put in it as Looney Toons. Looney Toons of course isn't remembered for being the standard for quality expected of other series, but as far above.

So, I'd love to see an animated series with that much love, work and quality, but I wouldn't say that shows that fail to reach that level are simply making excuses to be cheap and lazy.

Demon Lizardman

08-14-2009, 07:40 PM

Creating good 2D animation is expensive. Most 2d animated shows send off the majority of their animation to Korea and China. Even shows like "Batman the animated series" were mostly sent off, as were "Animaniacs" and "Scooby Doo", some more evident than others. While some of the episodes of these shows were well animated (the ones done in house) the majority of them were poor to mediocre at best. A sad fact is that western animators cost more to employ than outsourced animation. To do a show that is entirely great animation would be very expensive, from the extra cells, to testing time, to the people you employ.

I'm just trying to justify and explain. This is not to say I wouldn't love to see the return of a series with such love put in it as Looney Toons. Looney Toons of course isn't remembered for being the standard for quality expected of other series, but as far above.

So, I'd love to see an animated series with that much love, work and quality, but I wouldn't say that shows that fail to reach that level are simply making excuses to be cheap and lazy.

I just researched and the guys who made tiny toons and animaniacs also had the animation made in China and Korea, that still doesn't make me stop missing all those good cartoons. Sorry but Chowder ticks me off, Flapjack is alright and the new Spongebob episodes are kinda lame. If they ever do make another Loony toons or Disney cartoon, it's not going to be as good as it was back in the 80's and 90's.

LordDirk

08-15-2009, 05:15 PM

Well it's OK if chowder ticks you off, not everyone has the same tastes. I don't think it's necessarily the animation that you remember and cherish from those old shows, I think it was the interesting and inventive stories and great characters. I don't remember Yako, Wacko, and Dot for how well they were animated, but for how great characters they were.

In the end, great concepts, stories, and ideas is what is going to make a TV show, movie, story memorable. As far as animation goes, well I think it's a good excuse that it costs too much money to have a certain level of quality when it's really your story and writing department that is going to pull you through.

But anyhoo, gotta be careful we don't deviate off topic too much.

asifaarchive

08-16-2009, 12:26 PM

If your frame of reference extends further back than your own childhood, you'll find cartoons that had both great characters AND great animation. The difference between modern animation and classic animation is that in the past, artists tried to do *everything* well. A director used every aspect of filmmaking to make his point. Today, animation is made with dialogue but no animation, or jokes but no story to give them context. It's as if a game is taking place to see how much of animation you can take out of it and still have an animated cartoon.

As an animator, you have to dig deeper than just revisiting the shows you watched when you were little. There's a LOT of amazing animation, packed with ideas that have yet to be fully exploited. You just can't expect to turn on the TV set and see it playing on cable TV. An animator whose influences stretch back no further than Tiny Toons is going to continue making the same old crap we've been seeing for the past twenty years. It's time to set our sights higher.

asifaarchive

08-16-2009, 12:33 PM

I also think that creating 2d animation is expensive is just a lazy excuse.

In the typical animated TV show, enough money is wasted on things that don't make a difference on the screen to pay for three efficiently planned hand drawn shows. Animation is expensive, but even factored for inflation, the budgets in the golden age were much less than today's budgets. The produced great hand drawn animation efficiently because they used a logical production system. Today, most productions are saddled with a ton of unnecessary and downright wasteful executives. Peel back the layers of unnecessary waste, and 2D becomes cost efficient again.

LordDirk

08-16-2009, 12:53 PM

but even factored for inflation, the budgets in the golden age were much less than today's budgets.

Now where do you get that idea? If you have ever made anything on Film, inked or painted on cells then you will know that that is definitely not true. Now days many people have access to editing software, post production tools, and distribution methods for a far cheaper price then in the past. Simply making a short film could cost hundreds of dollars where as now people can do it with hardly any cost spare that of purchasing an editing program and a few Cd's. Heck the internet is practically a free way to distribute your films without the cost of putting it on film or paying for postage.

But back to the previous topic.

If your frame of reference extends further back than your own childhood, you'll find cartoons that had both great characters AND great animation.

Here's some animation that extends past my own childhood. You can see that it's animation is top notch. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjyv_i0tBSk&feature=fvw

And here's some animation from more current generations, obviously it can't compare with the previous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8CR951OaKE

As a whole every generation will have poor and great examples of work. I think that the overall consensus that TV animation is poor now days is due to a withdrawal from the early to late 90's generation of Television shows. During the 70's to 80's, (I'm just using the best of my memory for this date, it might be off a bit) Animation did indeed go through some hard times. Some people even called it the death of 2d Animation. Thankfully though, as with most things that hit their extreme, there was an equally powerful explosion of animation after that. In the 90's TV animation had an explosion of new and inventive ideas. From Angry Beavers, to Batman the Animated Series, Rugrats, Hey Arnold, Ed Edd n' Eddy, Beast Wars, Kablam, Ninja Turtles, Doug, Rockos modern life, Ren and Stimpy, the list goes on and on.

Every generation had it's hits. From Tex Avery to John K. I would say that as a whole the classical style of 2D animation is at a low, but 2D animation is still a force in Television animation and I wouldn't want to say that people working in Television now aren't working as hard as people did back in the 30's and 40's.

asifaarchive

08-17-2009, 03:55 PM

asifaarchive

08-17-2009, 04:09 PM

OwenWelsh

08-17-2009, 04:15 PM

Pinocchio cost 2.6 million in 1940. It runs 88 minutes. That comes out to a cost per minute for theatrical full animation of about $30,000 per minute. Factored for inflation, that comes out to about $440,000 per minute.

Shrek III cost about 160 million. It runs 92 minutes. Cost per minute = 1.74 million per minute.

Why isn't Shrek III four times better than Pinocchio?

That is interesting. Has anyone often wondered if audiences have changed? There is a new generation of movie goers who were raised on MTV and abrasive reality television shows. I wonder if quality standards just aren't understood by the general populace because they have no guideline to know any different.

LordDirk

08-17-2009, 07:26 PM

I worked for John K for ten years. He's a friend of mine. I've heard him say many times that the degree of skill in the very best of today's animation doesn't even match the average in the golden age. The reason isn't because artists are less talented today. It's because the system of production today is incredibly wasteful, and filmmakers are not able to build, train and maintain crews with steady work flow like they did in the days of theatrical shorts.

If you want to study and learn, you'll do a lot better studying golden age cartoons for their principles and technique than you will studying even the best of today's television or theatrical animation.

Budget wise I see your point, I was simply adding up supplies and not factoring in the size of the audience, staffing, etc. This still isn't to say that everything in the golden age of animation was necessarily better than everything coming out now. Even averagely I'm not so sure, because that statement is so vague that it encompasses everything animation.

Animators like Eric Goldberg, Andres DeJa, Glen Keane, only to name a few, I believe are definitely better than the average animator of the 1930s.

Yes if you want to learn the principles of classical 2D animation, then studying the people who helped invent and mold it is the logical thing to do. But we can still learn from people like Ryan Larkin who weren't in the golden age of animation, but still managed to lead an entire generation of artists.

What about the developments of feature animation like Spirited Away, Triplets of Bellville or TV animation like Avatar or Animaniacs? I don't think that the talent is averagely less in the millennium, I think it is simply spread across a broader spectrum.

That is interesting. Has anyone often wondered if audiences have changed? There is a new generation of movie goers who were raised on MTV and abrasive reality television shows. I wonder if quality standards just aren't understood by the general populace because they have no guideline to know any different.

I do think that audiences have changed, but I don't know if I am in a position so say if it's for the better or for the worse.

asifaarchive

08-17-2009, 10:59 PM

Animators like Eric Goldberg, Andres DeJa, Glen Keane, only to name a few, I believe are definitely better than the average animator of the 1930s.

You probably think that because you don't know as much about golden age animators as current ones. Do you know what cartoonists those people admire? Goldberg studies Ken Harris, Bobe Cannon and Hirschfeld. Deja studies Milt Kahl and T. S. Sullivant.

Bob Dylan had a great quote...

It's only natural to pattern yourself after someone. If I wanted to be a painter, I might think about trying to be like Van Gogh, or if I was an actor, act like Laurence Olivier. If I was an architect, there's Frank Gehry. But you can't just copy somebody. If you like someone's work, the important thing is to be exposed to everything that person has been exposed to. Anyone who wants to be a songwriter should listen to as much folk music as they can, study the form and structure of stuff that has been around for 100 years. I go back to Stephen Foster. -Bob Dylan

The plain truth is that there are no animators today who can compare with Carlo Vinci, Marc Davis, Grim Natwick, Rod Scribner, Bill Tytla, Robert McKimson, Irv Spence or Mike Lah... not because those guys were more talented or better artists. They just had more experience because they cranked out fifteen to twenty five feet a week each and every week of their lives. It takes today's animators ten years to get as much footage under their belts as the golden age guys got in a single year. Look at how far animation went from 1928 to 1938- that's Steamboat Willie to Snow White in one short decade. Nothing like that has happened since. Those old guys were on to something we could use today.

When you become a professional animator, you look at films differently. It doesn't matter if you grew up with a particular film... all that matters is how you can mine it for techniques. The cartoons of the 30s, 40s and 50s are more sophisticated in how they're directed, timed, drawn, animated and designed. The specific gags and stories may be trite, but that isn't what you should be looking for in inspiration anyway. What matters is how you can reapply the techniques those old guys invented and mastered.

asifaarchive

08-17-2009, 11:04 PM

I do think that audiences have changed, but I don't know if I am in a position so say if it's for the better or for the worse.

Audiences haven't changed all that much. They've just become further removed from filmmakers. In the 30s and 40s, Disney and his boys and the Warner Bros directors used to go to the Alexander Theater in Glendale and slip the projectionist five bucks to run their latest reel. They would sit in the back of the auditorium and watch the audience- registering what worked and what didn't. Today, the audience sits alone in front of the TV set. They rarely laugh out loud, but it doesn't matter because there's no one there to hear them laugh anyway. Directors can't grow and fine tune their craft without feedback.

jeremyhopkins

08-17-2009, 11:06 PM

If you want to study and learn, you'll do a lot better studying golden age cartoons for their principles and technique than you will studying even the best of today's television or theatrical animation.

Yes I agree. To be inspired by a modern film or tv show is fine but studying the source material is so important. Everything created in the golden age is the foundation for our industry today. Rather than studying a copy of a copy of a copy, why not study the work when it was an innovation? Talent also needs a production system that serves creativity not the other way around. Once someone has become indoctrinated into a specific way of thinking and working, its very difficult to break the mold. No matter how much audiences change, I believe that people still want to be entertained. There's no better way to learn about entertainment than to study the golden age artists who were great storytellers and actors.

jeremyhopkins

08-17-2009, 11:18 PM

Quote:
Animators like Eric Goldberg, Andres DeJa, Glen Keane, only to name a few, I believe are definitely better than the average animator of the 1930s.
You probably think that because you don't know as much about golden age animators as current ones. Do you know what cartoonists those people admire? Goldberg studies Ken Harris, Bobe Cannon and Hirschfeld. Deja studies Milt Kahl and T. S. Sullivant.

Bob Dylan had a great quote...

Quote:
It's only natural to pattern yourself after someone. If I wanted to be a painter, I might think about trying to be like Van Gogh, or if I was an actor, act like Laurence Olivier. If I was an architect, there's Frank Gehry. But you can't just copy somebody. If you like someone's work, the important thing is to be exposed to everything that person has been exposed to. Anyone who wants to be a songwriter should listen to as much folk music as they can, study the form and structure of stuff that has been around for 100 years. I go back to Stephen Foster. -Bob Dylan
The plain truth is that there are no animators today who can compare with Carlo Vinci, Marc Davis, Grim Natwick, Rod Scribner, Bill Tytla, Robert McKimson, Irv Spence or Mike Lah... not because those guys were more talented or better artists. They just had more experience because they cranked out fifteen to twenty five feet a week each and every week of their lives. It takes today's animators ten years to get as much footage under their belts as the golden age guys got in a single year. Look at how far animation went from 1928 to 1938- that's Steamboat Willie to Snow White in one short decade. Nothing like that has happened since. Those old guys were on to something we could use today.

When you become a professional animator, you look at films differently. It doesn't matter if you grew up with a particular film... all that matters is how you can mine it for techniques. The cartoons of the 30s, 40s and 50s are more sophisticated in how they're directed, timed, drawn, animated and designed. The specific gags and stories may be trite, but that isn't what you should be looking for in inspiration anyway. What matters is how you can reapply the techniques those old guys invented and mastered.

Exactly. Great post. Hope new forum users take the time to read and think about what you've written.

LordDirk

08-17-2009, 11:29 PM

I've heard him say many times that the degree of skill in the very best of today's animation doesn't even match the average in the golden age

This is what I was arguing against. I'm not saying Glen Keane is as good as Ken Harris or Freddie more, but I am saying that the degree of skill in the very best of today's animation does match and exceeds that of the average animator in the golden age.

I agree that studying the greats is vital if you are to understand classical 2d animation. But I also realize that new animators have the ability to bring something new and fresh. The 9 old men were amazing animators but I never saw them produce something as abstract as something done by Ryan Larkin. Eric Goldberg wills study the greats of the golden age and try to be like them, but I as an animator will also study Eric Goldberg for what he adds to the table as well.

As Eric admires Freddie Moore, I shall admire Freddie Moore and Eric.

asifaarchive

08-17-2009, 11:57 PM

The best today aren't as good as the average in the golden age. I could keep naming names further down the list... John Sibley, Virgil Ross, Bernie Wolf, Art Davis, Hal Ambro, Manny Gould, Pete Burness... these guys may have been considered the "B Team" at their respective studios in their day, but they were still more skilled than the best today.

As for abstract and experimental animation, how much do you know about Oskar Fischinger, Alexander Alexieff, Len Lye or Norman McLaren? For that matter, how much do you know about Bakshi's Heavy Traffic and Coonskin?

Everybody knows Freddie Moore and Milt Kahl. But there is so much more to know than just that. Animators seem to waste half their lives referencing the same things over and over. How many times have we seen Mowgli's mouth twist to the side on every single Disney character from Ariel to Aladdin? There is much more to cartooning than Freddie Moore. There is a rich and varied history that goes all the way back to Thomas Nast. I've been studying for 25 years and I haven't scratched the surface yet.

My advice is, dig deeper.

LordDirk

08-18-2009, 12:45 AM

Even still I rank Eric Goldberg above that of the average animators of the golden age. His work on the Genie from Aladdin or Rhapsody in Blue I think is a step above what I've seen from even the more zany of the animation B team. But perhaps you are right, maybe I'm not digging deep enough.

I am familiar with Norman McLaren's pixelation, Len Lye's paint on film, etc etc. I've watched Coonskin and heavy traffic. I didn't think much of the animation in Ralph Bakshi's films, but they were inventive and had interesting stories.

It wasn't called the golden age for nothing, it was an explosion of new ideas and a refinement of classical techniques. This isn't to say that today things have simmered down to below the average of what was expected in the Golden age. With films like the Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, Who Framed Rodger Rabbit, and the introduction of an entire new medium of animation (CG), I see it as a new direction, but not a step down.

I'm not trying to be ignorant or condescending, nor do I claim to know more about animation history than you. But when you make a claim like that then I have to keep asking so that I understand specifically where you are coming from. How does someone compare Looney Toons and Bambi to Tarzan and Rodger Rabbit? Do you base the merits of the animators on how well they understand the principles of animation or what new ideas they introduce?

asifaarchive

08-18-2009, 12:40 PM

The criteria I'm using are: sophisticated use of principles, draftsmanship and variety in the application of technique. I'm not considering entertainment value, stories or whether I personally like their films or not.

For instance, Disney films are among the most solidly drawn and well planned animated films, but they are also the most homogenous and trite. I wouldn't suggest referencing Disney for story or acting, but Disney is great for effects animation, the principles of polish (overlapping action, follow through, depiction of weight, etc.) and in particular spectacular layout (which was Disney's strongest suit).

Warner Bros cartoons are among the best directed films of the golden age. They are also good for principles of exaggeration, "fourth dimensional" movement theories, design, facial expressions and acting.

Fleischer cartoons are the best for rhythm and timing theories, imaginative movement, clarity of action and visual storytelling that is not dependent on plot. There's very little in animation today that is even in the same ballpark when it comes to these techniques.

MGM Tom & Jerry cartoons are the most solidly drawn and well posed cartoons of all (especially Irv Spence's scenes). And the Tex Avery cartoons are so masterfully directed and animated you don't even notice that the characters are one dimensional in their personalities. On top of that, the animation of Bobe Cannon and Mike Lah (among others) is extremely sophisticated.

Modern cartoons are closer to our own frame of reference, so they might be more entertaining and have stories we can relate to better. But the technique in modern animation is not applied with anywhere near the same degree of skill as in old cartoons.

Imagine if you could take modern stories and sensibilities and pair it with the sophisticated technique of the golden age... it would hit it out of the park.

P.S. At Netflix, they have an 8 DVD set of works by Norman McLaren. Check that out. "Neighbours" is McLaren's weakest films, but for some reason animation history teachers love it. His films utilizing the optical printer, pinscreen and painting on film are astounding, and his philosophy is a model for all animators.

asifaarchive

08-18-2009, 12:46 PM

For a B team golden age animator who could do amazing "zany" animation (I hate that term!) check out John Sibley's work in "How To Be A Sailor" or "How to Play Baseball" or Manny Gould in Clampett's "Tokyo Woes".

LordDirk

08-19-2009, 12:32 AM

John Sibley was great for goofy because he animated straight ahead, but I think that was also a flaw in his work. He could do great loopey straight ahead animation but he didn't do much else besides loopy or stretchy animation and was kinda stuck doing Goofy.

I think sometimes people get so caught up in the past that they fail to see whats new in animation. Films like "Genius Party" are great examples of playing with animation as a medium.

If we're using sophisticated use of principles, draftsmanship and variety in the application of technique as criteria then does that factor in performance, expert or innovative use of the medium, or improving upon already established techniques?

How do you factor in CG or stop motion animation? What about the influence of non American animation?

Which average animators of the Golden age of animation do you consider to meet all of your criteria in the best way all round and why do you think even the best of todays animators cannot stack up to them?

asifaarchive

08-19-2009, 12:22 PM

Animating straight ahead is a technique. It's neither better nor worse than animating pose to pose. Fast, frenetic action lends itself straight ahead animation. That said, Sibley was perfectly capable of animating pose to pose. Just look at his great animation of the drunk page in Sleeping Beauty for an example of this.

Which average animators of the Golden age of animation do you consider to meet all of your criteria in the best way all round and why do you think even the best of todays animators cannot stack up to them?

You're getting hung up on the specifics of what I am saying and missing the general point. The first half of the 20th century was a blossoming of the arts in America. Just about EVERY artistic medium... illustration, music, acting, cartooning, filmmaking, dance... was more sophisticated and skilled than today. Sure, one can find examples of individual artists today who are great, but back then, to be great was the norm.

Here is an example of an animator who worked on Paul Terry's Mighty Mouse and Bill Hanna and Joe Barbera's Flintstones. I think you'll agree that those aren't exactly the crown jewels of animation studios. Read this stuff and see how the guy was trained, the way he worked and what he accomplished and I think you'll be amazed.

Biography: Carlo Vinci (http://www.animationarchive.org/bio/2006/01/vinci-carlo.html)

Vinci's education at the National Academy of Design (http://www.animationarchive.org/2007/12/theory-how-to-pick-animation-school.html)

Vinci the artist (http://www.animationarchive.org/2007/08/biography-training-of-golden-age.html)

Vinci at Terrytoons 1 (http://www.animationarchive.org/2009/05/history-terrytoons-studio-tour-1939.html)

Vinci at Terrytoons 2 (http://www.animationarchive.org/2007/01/filmography-temperamental-lion-1940.html)

Vinci's Terry-Toons Love Notes (http://www.animationarchive.org/2007/06/terry-toons-carlo-vinci-notes.html)

Vinci at Hanna Barbera (http://www.animationarchive.org/2006/09/biography-john-k-on-flintstones.html)

There were a lot more great animators in the golden age than just the "nine old men".

Grim Natwick (http://www.animationarchive.org/2007/11/exhibit-grim-natwicks-scrapbook-work-in.html)

Ray Patin 1 (http://www.animationarchive.org/2005/10/media-ray-patin-studios.html) / Ray Patin 2 (http://www.animationarchive.org/2005/11/media-more-ray-patin-studios-drawings.html) / Ray Patin 3 (http://www.animationarchive.org/2005/11/media-yet-more-amazing-ray-patin.html) / Ray Patin 4 (http://www.animationarchive.org/2005/11/media-ray-patin-spot-news_18.html) / Ray Patin 5 (http://www.animationarchive.org/2005/12/media-ray-patin-collection-continued.html) / Ray Patin 6 (http://www.animationarchive.org/2005/12/media-last-of-ray-patin-art.html)

Clair Weeks 1 (http://www.animationarchive.org/2007/02/biography-clair-weeks-goodbye-book-1952.html) / Clair Weeks 2 (http://www.animationarchive.org/2007/08/history-clair-weeks-pioneer-of-indian.html) / Clair Weeks 3 (http://www.animationarchive.org/2007/12/another-christmas-gift-snow-white.html)

Preston Blair 1 (http://www.animationarchive.org/2006/05/media-preston-blairs-animation-first.html) / Preston Blair 2 (http://www.animationarchive.org/2006/05/media-preston-blairs-animation-1st.html)

Berny Wolf (http://www.animationarchive.org/2006/09/biography-berny-wolf-1911-2006.html)

I'm currently working on gathering material on two more animators you might not be familiar with... Ray Patterson (http://www.animationarchive.org/2009/07/animation-art-ray-patterson-at-mintz.html) and Paul Fennell.

Look into the lives and careers of any of these animators and you'll find some jaw dropping information on just how great these guys were. What you find out from Disney's "making of" books and publicity puff pieces isn't enough. You're an artist. Build a reference library and expand your frame of reference. Study the great work of the past and try to build on it instead of reinventing the wheel. You can bet that the modern day animators that you admire have already done that.

In addition to animators, study other types of artists as well... Heinrich Kley, Milt Gross, Cliff Sterrett, Milton Caniff, Virgil Partch, Gustaf Tenggren, Edmund Dulac, Feodor Rojankovsky, Erich Sokol, Eldon Dedini, Earl Oliver Hurst, etc. etc. etc.

There's a lot to discover in the past. If you just look at modern stuff, you'll only be almost as good as the people you admire. Look at the stuff the people you admire are looking at and you have a chance to be even better than them.

asifaarchive

08-19-2009, 12:36 PM

If we're using sophisticated use of principles, draftsmanship and variety in the application of technique as criteria then does that factor in performance, expert or innovative use of the medium, or improving upon already established techniques?

Taking the medium further is what you do once you have absorbed and are ready to synthesize the foundation principles of the past. Digging through the past for nuggets of information and inspiration is a life-long occupation. The animators you admire do that just about every day of their lives. They know more about the artists of the past than you can even imagine. That's how they got where they are... by taking the knowledge of the past and building on it.

asifaarchive

08-19-2009, 12:46 PM

How do you factor in CG or stop motion animation? What about the influence of non American animation?

CG and stop motion are no different than any other artistic medium. Animation is animation.

Anime is a product of the culture that produces it, both creatively and in more practical ways. It's great to be aware of it and enjoy it, but trying to ape it without having the cultural background is like wearing someone else's pants and expecting to act just like them.

From a purely business standpoint, limiting yourself to drawing in a specific style- any specific style- is like painting yourself into a corner. Anime has many drawing mannerisms that are useful for production where a large work force moves from project to project and needs to be able to draw in a specific "house style". Those mannerisms are not a good place to start from though. Developing fundamental drawing techniques- the same ones that artists back to Rembrandt have learned- is the best way to be versatile enough to draw in *any* style. Animation artists shouldn't worry about having a style. Style is something that finds you, not the other way around.

DNethery

08-19-2009, 03:11 PM

jeremyhopkins

08-19-2009, 08:36 PM

Taking the medium further is what you do once you have absorbed and are ready to synthesize the foundation principles of the past. Digging through the past for nuggets of information and inspiration is a life-long occupation. The animators you admire do that just about every day of their lives. They know more about the artists of the past than you can even imagine. That's how they got where they are... by taking the knowledge of the past and building on it.

I've noticed this with young and experienced artists. There are some who are always passionate, searching, looking for new ways to do things and these are the people I enjoy working with on a production. They tend to improve fast because they have a vision, a focus and the energy to keep things going. Even if they don't quite have the fundamentals in place, they'll get it in time.

The other kind of artist is the one who has achieved everything and just wants to maintain. They are competent but the passion is gone. To me, this is the real demise of 2d animation; when someone is going to work for the paycheck rather than the desire to contribute something special.

Eric Goldberg wills study the greats of the golden age and try to be like them, but I as an animator will also study Eric Goldberg for what he adds to the table as well.

If someone wants to study modern and golden age artists, I think that's fine. Patrick you're in a unique position where you can have a conversation and show Bert, Eric and all of the other talented folks at Disney your work. They're your home team so I understand wanting to support them as well. Bottom line is if you feel you're doing your best and the people around you are doing their best as well, that's all that matters. If Eric and Bert chose you because you take risks and innovate, that's great. Keep studying past and present and don't let the passion burn out.

OwenWelsh

08-19-2009, 11:44 PM

Studying the old masters is definitely a great way to pull us out of this animation slump. With all this name dropping of talented artists to study I often wonder why no one mentions adding Mr. Bluth to the list. Maybe that's just obvious because this is his site?

Rodney

08-20-2009, 12:53 PM

The other kind of artist is the one who has achieved everything and just wants to maintain. They are competent but the passion is gone. To me, this is the real demise of 2d animation; when someone is going to work for the paycheck rather than the desire to contribute something special.

While one could hope to see more fire burning in every artist aren't these the guys that most people can rely on to get the job done? Perhaps moreso than the innovators who jump from fascination to fascination and job to job all ?

I'm not a fan of the up-or-out mentality.
The history of animation is full of destructive attitudes that marginalize its facilitators. Isn't there a place for the tried and true? Does everything have to be new and innovative?

I'm not a big fan of Shrek but I can understand some of its appeal.
I say it's success has very little to do with animation.

If I had been there to see Snow White in the theater I'm sure I'd have been stoked to see 'more of the same'. Of course, I felt exactly the same way when watching Wiley Coyote chase after that Roadrunner day after day.

joedorsey

08-20-2009, 03:19 PM

I feel the fire is still alive in the independent animation community. I've seen some really creative projects.

jeremyhopkins

08-20-2009, 06:19 PM

Perhaps moreso than the innovators who jump from fascination to fascination and job to job all ?

No, it isn't jumping from fascination to fascination. These people are driven and have a focus which is why they get things done fast and improve quick. There is another type who burns out from being overworked and are eventually self destructive.

I'm not a fan of the up-or-out mentality.
The history of animation is full of destructive attitudes that marginalize its facilitators. Isn't there a place for the tried and true? Does everything have to be new and innovative?
Sure, that's why I agree with others who say study the past and learn from the great artists who have already discovered useful techniques. Invest in the fundamentals then apply that knowledge and skill to observations of today's world.

What I was referring to in my previous post was the mentality of, 'I've learned everything and have nothing more to improve.' Part of the fun of animation is the discovery and self improvement or working with great people who have unique talents. Anyone who has given up learning will find that environment uncomfortable. Maybe it's a bit harsh to say they're responsible for the demise of animation but they aren't adding to the medium either.

asifaarchive

08-20-2009, 08:36 PM

There is a generation gap in animation that we are struggling to get through right now. Most of the old guard were trained in the 30s and 40s. By the time that the 60s came along, animation was in decline, and they rode out their career working on crap like Scooby Doo and He Man to get their hours in so they could get a pension and retire. Very few came into the business in the 60s and 70s.

By the time Roger Rabbit and Bakshi's Mighty Mouse stirred things up again, most of the old guys were gone. My generation of animators didn't get the opportunity to learn from the men who had built the business. We had to learn at DIC or Hanna Barbera or Filmation. We picked up a LOT of bad habits and learned to accept mediocrity and a perverted production system as the status quo.

It isn't like that today. Young animators have tremendous resources on the internet, with home video, and in the wealth of historical and technical information that has surfaced in the past decade. Instead of reinventing the wheel poorly the way my generation did, they have the chance to pick up the baton that the old guard left behind and move the medium forward. Everything a student of animation needs to know is in the films.

But they aren't going to reclaim what's been lost by looking at anime or Ren & Stimpy or Animaniacs or Little Mermaid. They have to do *better* than all that if they want to compete with the golden age. That takes the determination to ferret out the information from the films and artifacts left behind, and an analytical mind for figuring things out instead of just accepting the status quo.

There is absolutely no excuse for a kid animator to have a narrow frame of reference or a closed mind. There are too many resources out there. Instead of arguing about how great mediocre modern stuff is, they should be grabbing the clues and names thrown out in these kinds of threads and go google and netflix up what they don't know.

madanimator

09-30-2009, 11:42 AM

To my mind, 2D animation didn't had such an success like 3D animation, because 3D was so new, an invention, and it improved very fast. The technic went better and better and the people were excited to watch 3D animation. They already know 2D for a long time (almost 90 years). So they knew this kind of stories already and this kind of animation. 3D animation was something new and fresh. But now there are a lot of flops of 3D animation today, too. I think, people got used to 3D now. The reason for Pixar's success are the great stories. I think, when there will be a 2D animation feature with a story that is as unusual as Pixar's stories, it will be an success, too. I think that people want to see 2D animation, again (I know, very optimistic), but only when the story is good and not boring and clich

asifaarchive

10-02-2009, 07:16 PM

The quantum leap in both technical and creative advancement from Steamboat Willie to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs took just ten years.

Moneyguns

10-02-2009, 09:54 PM

You know, I think 3D animation is getting more attention than 2D know days just because the 3D movies have been more funny than 2D lately. It's probably the simplest thing people can connect with.

wolfsymphony

10-02-2009, 10:00 PM

3D movies have been more funny
That's one of the reasons I tend to stay away and get put off by 3D films.. they seem to focus too much on the humor, witty remarks and punch lines.

Moneyguns

10-02-2009, 10:11 PM

That's one of the reasons I tend to stay away and get put off by 3D films.. they seem to focus too much on the humor, witty remarks and punch lines.

So what you're saying is you don't see 3d movies because they're funny?

wolfsymphony

10-02-2009, 10:28 PM

So what you're saying is you don't see 3d movies because they're funny?
No at all. I'm saying it seems they tend to focus too much on the funny and jokes rather then the story. They lack alot of heart.. Not all the time, but in most cases.. that's what I feel anyway.

joedorsey

10-03-2009, 08:25 AM

It will take a change in perception of 2D animation to bring things back. There will need to be some risk taking. Right now, those funding projects will accept formula because of it's earnign record (ex. Princess & The Frog). If a risky film is entertaining and can cut a profit, then things will progress. Any great pitch men out there?

jeremyhopkins

10-04-2009, 01:15 PM

The reason for Pixar's success are the great stories.
I couldn't agree more. Well, at least they resonate well with audiences. I watched the TS1 & TS2 double feature on Friday and though these films are 10 & 15 years old now, they still connect with people. The audience laughed and cried at the right spots. So if it was technology as some have speculated in this thread, nobody would be interested in seeing these films again. The technology is old now and probably our iphones have more technical power than the computers used to produced TS1. If it was the acting and animation, the audience would've left half way through TS1 because there are some really rough edges. What surprised me most was Jesse's song in TS2 where I could hear the audience start to sniffle half way through the sequence. It wasn't just one or two people but the whole group that was genuinely moved. The bottom line is, Pixar made better stories that audiences, perhaps not traditional animation fans, appreciate. They connect on multiple levels that are both funny and emotional even 10 years later when the software has changed. It's not the medium, its the story written in away that appreciates the medium, and if the next slate of traditional animation from Disney can connect with people in the same way, they'll have a huge hit for years to come.

madanimator

10-04-2009, 01:40 PM

Did anyone have seen the stop motion feature 'Max and Mary'? Although the characters are modeled puppets and you really could see that, the story was so powerful that in the end you were not far from crying.

joedorsey

10-04-2009, 03:45 PM

What surprised me most was Jesse's song in TS2 where I could hear the audience start to sniffle half way through the sequence.

Not to take away from the animation, but Sarah McLachan's performance of "When She Loved Me" (nominated for an oscar for best song) brought that scene to another level. It really shows what you can do with the right visuals and music. I watched it online and the hair raised on my arm...again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px0j1EHF8Y0

Moneyguns

10-05-2009, 10:42 AM

The audience laughed and cried at the right spots.

Who would cry watching Toy Story? That movie was not that sad.

Moneyguns

10-05-2009, 12:29 PM

Who would cry watching Toy Story? That movie was not that sad.

Oh, I reamember what seen that is now. It's sad but it wouldn't make me cry. I'de probubly just say, "eh, that's to bad."

The reason why I was thinking maby 3D is bigger than 2D now days is because, me and my brother just watched All Dog's go to Heaven. Great story, great characters, great animation, great movie, but it wasn't funny at all, and most people I talk to havent even heard of or seen it.

madanimator

10-05-2009, 01:00 PM

Oh, I reamember what seen that is now. It's sad but it wouldn't make me cry. I'de probubly just say, "eh, that's to bad."

The reason why I was thinking maby 3D is bigger than 2D now days is because, me and my brother just watched All Dog's go to Heaven. Great story, great characters, great animation, great movie, but it wasn't funny at all, and most people I talk to havent even heard of or seen it.

I think 'All dog's go to heaven' is a bad example for 'typical' 2D animation, because to my mind Don Bluth's movies are different from the 'clich?' Disney 2D animation.

Moneyguns

10-05-2009, 01:12 PM

I think 'All dog's go to heaven' is a bad example for 'typical' 2D animation, because to my mind Don Bluth's movies are different from the 'clich?' Disney 2D animation.

I don't really know what you meen.

madanimator

10-05-2009, 01:35 PM

Oh, I reamember what seen that is now. It's sad but it wouldn't make me cry. I'de probubly just say, "eh, that's to bad."

The reason why I was thinking maby 3D is bigger than 2D now days is because, me and my brother just watched All Dog's go to Heaven. Great story, great characters, great animation, great movie, but it wasn't funny at all, and most people I talk to havent even heard of or seen it.

It could be that I didn't understand what you wrote. Do you think that 'All dog's go to heaven' is not as big es 3d now days, because it's not funny??

jeremyhopkins

10-05-2009, 01:56 PM

Who would cry watching Toy Story? That movie was not that sad.
Well it was Jesse's song from TS2 that was the real tear jerker. TS1 has a quiet moment with Woody trapped under a box and Buzz strapped to a rocket but I'd agree with you that it didn't really have the same affect as Jesse's sequence. Guess my point was that it's not the technology that made these films popular. It was a story that works as well today as it did 10 or 15 years ago. Perhaps I was in a room filled with Pixies (Pixar fans) but it sure was something to hear everyone clap when the movie ended.

Moneyguns

10-06-2009, 12:57 PM

It could be that I didn't understand what you wrote. Do you think that 'All dog's go to heaven' is not as big es 3d now days, because it's not funny??

Well, what I meen is, it wasn't really reamemberd, it was kinda forgoten , I guess you can say, and I think It's because it wasn't funny. It's kinda hard to explain because I think much faster than I tipe.

It's like, I think people would much rather watch a movie that made them laugh if they where with a buch of friends, than a movie that would make them cry, sort of speek, because it would be kinda imbarising and it would dampen the mood. Something like that.

I bet I'm not makeing any sens at all.:)

johncbeggs

10-06-2009, 01:19 PM

I just watched "all dogs go to heaven" last night! what are you taling about moneyguns :laughing: that movie is great :D

Moneyguns

10-06-2009, 01:23 PM

I just watched "all dogs go to heaven" last night! what are you taling about moneyguns :laughing: that movie is great :D

I didn't say it was bad, I said it wasn't funny.

madanimator

10-06-2009, 01:46 PM

Now I understand what you want to say! I agree but I would add that the best movies, and the most liked, are those who are both, funny and sad. I don't think that a movie, which is only funny will have more success than a movie that touches the viewers heart and let them cry.

Moneyguns

10-06-2009, 04:56 PM

Sophie.

10-15-2009, 11:27 AM

I can't describe how much I wish 2D Animation would come back, I do not care what anyone says no matter how much effort has gone into 3D animation it will never be as meaningful or as magical as 2D. Looking at a pice of 3D film footage you will have no idea who created it, however with 2D you can see the artists own style. 3D animation has obviously been done to try and boost profits and gain peoples interests but I think it has had a negative effect because to be honest i've lost interest, I never watch 3D films at the cinemas anymore because i know that they'll all have the same look and feel and only really work if they're well scripted. However I feel that with a 2D film even if the script isn't the best, if the animation is up to scratch it's still a great film. I can't describe what i truly mean but I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say. It's like one of the scenes in Thumbelina (which is one of my most favorite movies.) when she's singing the song 'Sun' in the moles home, the whole change of color tone just created the perfect atmosphere and I just don't believe that 3D animation will ever re-create that. I really don't want the children of today to miss out on the magic and soul inspiring feeling you can get from 2D animation which to me seems a whole lot more realistic and intimate than 3D. If anyone can get in touch with Disney tell them where they're going wrong is that they've lost their magic, all they're working for now is the money, they don't spend enough time on the traditional beauty, saying that The Princess and The Frog comes out soon and I really do hope it does not disappoint :) Also I remember All Dogs Go To Heaven and I remember it because it wasn't that funny, It made me cry and it got to me I wanted to be a good person because of that film and thats a big thing to a 6 year old, some films work better when they're not funny. xD

Sophie.

10-15-2009, 11:36 AM

I think that Disney needs to take a risk with it's stories as well as its animation, they wouldn't do stories such as The Hunchback of Notre Dame with the song 'God Help The Outcasts' because it's not 'politically correct'. I say life isn't 'politically correct' people want stories with darkness and sadness in because they can relate to it and connect with the characters more. Plus if the characters get a happy ending it makes that more effective :)

OriginalGagBonkers

10-15-2009, 02:56 PM

We are going to need a high, and I mean HIGH miracle for Disney's princess and the frog for a success. I barely even go to the movies anymore all I ever see are just CG after CG animated movies. Not even Dreamworks's movies are worth my money and they are not even getting them. I miss 2-D animation like everyone else around here and not only that Adult cartoons in the cinemas{Admit it people, there has to be a few people on here who saw adult cartoons.} But the only CG movie I thought that are good are The Incredibles, and TMNT.

I just wish that not only studios in America make 2-D animated movies, but also make something that adults can look at as well. I keep hearing that people wanted to see El superbeasto on the big screen worldwide instead of being put onto DVD. I just hope Disney does something similar like Hunchback or Great Mouse. It would be nice to see Disney do dark elements or even a PG movie.

madanimator

10-15-2009, 06:04 PM

It would be nice to see Disney do dark elements or even a PG movie.

I totally agree! Maybe that would revice the 'Disney- everything is wonderful' clich? and the people would be surprised.

jeremyhopkins

10-15-2009, 06:58 PM

I do not care what anyone says no matter how much effort has gone into 3D animation it will never be as meaningful or as magical as 2D.
I understand this point of view especially on this site which promotes hand drawn animation. My concern is that we can have a respectful conversation that appreciates all forms of film making though that conversation can include acknowledging the strength or weakness of each medium. I'm very sorry that 3d films, stop motion or perhaps some live action films don't connect with you in the same way as drawn animation. For hand drawn enthusiasts, it's a frustrating time but the great news is that there is such a wealth of hand drawn short and feature films online now. Hopefully you can find something that is meaningful to you in the meantime while more traditional films are being developed.
My point of view is slightly different as I've stated before. Having a variety of live action, stop motion, cg and traditional animation, I think, is wonderful. Not every film is equal in my eyes either but if I sit with an audience and they genuinely enjoy what they're watching, it makes me wonder what this film is doing right. The studio name is secondary to the talent involved and the support structure they have to develop films that are entertaining. More than anything else, if management is supportive of the creative talent and if they've hired the right people who communicate their vision well, everything else will work out. My hope is that will happen for all mediums.

jeremyhopkins

10-15-2009, 07:45 PM

If anyone can get in touch with Disney tell them where they're going wrong is that they've lost their magic, all they're working for now is the money, they don't spend enough time on the traditional beauty
Well, I've never worked for Disney but earlier this year I had a chance to speak to John Lasseter and Ed Catmull who are in charge of creative development at Disney/Pixar. If this offers you any reassurance, they know about the poor creative decisions in the past. They made changes in the past 3 years by creating a director driven studio which means the directors make creative decisions - not the marketing department.
Disney is a public company and part of their job is answering to shareholders to improve stock value. Commercial art is a business. However, making great films that appeal to audiences everywhere is good business. If a film is successful, that property can be passed down line to consumer products - toys, books, soundtracks, etc and theme park attractions because people feel compelled to own a part of that experience. If a film is less successful, then it's harder to justify costs of an expensive attraction or a series of toys and clothing.
John's strength is he's a sincere guy who loves his work. He has a demanding eye for quality and gives space for directors to do their job. If you don't like a film, at least you know it was most likely the director's style that didn't work rather than a series of focus group notes. Judging by some of the TAG blog comments, not all employees are in love with this style of leadership and I'm a bit disappointed by the PatF layoffs but then that's part of the business. Hopefully these new films will show more of the heart and quality you're looking for in a Disney film.

*I'd also like to encourage you not to be a victim. If you feel that company doesn't support your vision, do what you can to be the change you want to see. The most important thing I take away from Don, John and the myriad of other animators who moved on from Disney, is that they maintained their vision and pursued their goals despite the studio politics at the time. If you feel that current Disney films don't speak to you, create your own or become involved in an organization like asifa that promotes classic films. We all have computers and pencil test software so we never have to worry about traditional animation dying out.

Don Bluth

10-19-2009, 01:57 PM

DNethery

10-19-2009, 04:21 PM

Very well said, Jeremy. I particularly like your positive attitude for building a future for the classical animation arts. Complaining about the current "Status Quo" will not bear good fruit! If an artist has a better idea than the current trend, then he/she should trot it out for all to see. With the computer software that is on the market today, one can easily create a short or even a half hour film that will raise eyebrows. The illusive element will always be finding good ideas that will be entertaining and delightful.

Hear , hear ! Well said , Don (and Jeremy !)

Look at what these folks did in their 'spare time' (almost all still holding down their regular studio day jobs, working on this part time) ---

U8JPBPrisS8

The finished film is 15 minutes. Debuts next week at the Austin Film Festival.

http://www.pupsofliberty.com/FullCrewCredits.html

jeremyhopkins

10-23-2009, 10:28 PM

I think it's wonderful to see animators work on their own project after hours. I've posted more of my thoughts in the pups for liberty thread but what is really impressive is the quality of people involved. Talent with humility is very impressive!

I appreciate that we can have a candid discussion about issues that affect the animation industry. It's important that we communicate honestly but my hope is that we feel empowered rather than resentful and bitter. Many of the issues that trouble the animation industry aren't industry specific. They're everywhere and they need thought and decisive action to make a plan to deal with these issues as they arise. Each person has their own person challenges so it's up to the individual to decide what is right for their life.

Sometimes we expect that working at 'X company' will solve all our problems but in reality the real issues only start when we get the job. For people visiting this site, hopefully they'll see the gold is in the people and a lot of the learning opportunities that exist at companies that have internships also exist here. It's up to us to make the most of the situation, ask questions and push to do our best. Animation, at least for me, isn't dependent on a studio but rather on the quality of people - being talented, kind hearted, and dedicated. These traits make a studio and a company great. Seeing the work for the Cyber Garage Project has been very encouraging and I believe it is a success. Granted, we all have a long way to go but seeing people who have never animated before do such great work is very special. Gratitude for the opportunity and excitement to be with people who love animation are great ways to combat apathy and cynicism - both of which, I feel, are partially responsible for the current state of traditional animation.

Ron and John had an interview on latino review (http://www.latinoreview.com/news/interview-princess-and-the-frog-directors-john-musker-and-ron-clements-plus-7-brand-new-images-8310) where they discuss some of things I had mentioned in my previous post and more. This quote I find particularly interesting:

'The Black Cauldron' were kind of dark days for Disney. That film cost a lot of money, took a long time to do and it was not profitable. At the same time 'Black Cauldron' came out, and I guess they mentioned this in the documentary, 'The Care Bears' movie was done. 'Black Cauldron' I think cost around, even at the time, close to $40 million which was a huge amount of money at that time. I think 'The Care Bears' movie cost $2 million and made more money than 'The Black Cauldron'. So there were definitely people that said, 'This idea of trying to do a rich, high quality, richly animated film – '

'An American Tail' did well.

Musker: Yeah, and that certainly helped us.

Clements: That helped us and we used that in terms of when we were doing 'Little Mermaid' when 'American Tale' came out. 'American Tale' was successful. That and 'Roger Rabbit' were really breakthrough things.
Musker: So when we wanted to get production value on 'Little Mermaid' we could point to 'American Tale' and say, 'See, look at that.'

I thought that was a nice nod and also it brings up a fact that many of miss when discussing the revival of traditional animation at Disney during the late 80's and early 90's. Actually some of the article was eerily similar to what we have discussed here and it makes me wonder if Ron and John stop by.. if they do, welcome to the boards!

LordDirk

11-01-2009, 02:52 AM

Sometimes we expect that working at 'X company' will solve all our problems but in reality the real issues only start when we get the job. For people visiting this site, hopefully they'll see the gold is in the people and a lot of the learning opportunities that exist at companies that have internships also exist here. It's up to us to make the most of the situation, ask questions and push to do our best. Animation, at least for me, isn't dependent on a studio but rather on the quality of people - being talented, kind hearted, and dedicated. These traits make a studio and a company great.

I would also like to thank Jeremy for his latest two posts, this quote in particular. The more I study, analyze, and bounce topics off my friends, the more complex my subject seems to become. As I have animated over the years, my understanding of how the company works has become much less black and white as it used to be.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard arguments basically in the context of (Company A is good, and Company B is bad, because of yadda yadda). It comes from being a student perhaps, and maturing my understanding of animation and the business along with my fellow students. When I finally arrived at Disney I had to wonder, "how can this company be evil/bad/bland/etc if it has such great and devoted people working for it?"

I had the rare opportunity to work with amazing artists who were dedicated to their work as well as constantly improving upon their artwork. In an environment such as that, with so much fun and yet such high professionalism, I soon did away with the preconceived notions of some of my fellow students. What you stated in that quote is exactly the realization that I came to, and something I think everyone can benefit from listening to. It is what you put into it, and we should always strive to do our best.

I relish the time I spent in my internship, and it has inspired me to push my animation to new and higher levels.

Littlefoot

11-20-2009, 01:06 PM

I think 2D animation is due for a revival but it must be good box office material! Does anyone agree?

Something like original The Land Before Time would hit the sweet spot, super atmospherical movies like that can only succeed. Maybe a reboot for the series?

roxyryoko

11-23-2009, 06:03 PM

I don't know how much of these ideas have been stated since I'm still reading through the 24 pages of posts, but

I think the problem with animation today is that people seem to throw it into a genre instead of a medium. They think animation is for kids and a lot of it is becoming more and more immature. The stories that were full of series and many times sophisticated themes are so rare now in animation. I have seen some of the new children animation on early in the morning, and it seems to me that they just belittle the intelligence of the children. I turned on the TV and a 3D Mickey Mouse was asking the audience how many bottles were in his hands. When I was going to preschool, there was nothing like that on TV; I watched the old Disney and Warner Bros. shorts and Winnie the Pooh. And I don't think I was corrupted by violence or anything. It seems like this kind of animation is replacing the role of the teacher and the parent.
The problem with the so many people calling animation a genre is they don't realize that it makes up at least 50% of live action now days. They think the backgrounds are real and only pieces really are.

I think also school systems are hurting the traditional arts. In California, the budget cuts are causing high schools to remove art classes! I know my art instructor was told several times to get ride of one of the three art classes he had to replace it with AP Art History (he was all ready teaching 2 although he didn't like it), but he refused thankfully!
Even in my animation program at USC, I was shocked to find out the limited drawing abilities of my fellow classmates. Some had never taken a drawing class and you can tell in their drawings of the figure.
The actual amount of art classes required is only two. I'm almost finished with the first and it was just basic art I did in high school. Draw this still life. Copy this picture in pastel. Which are valuable things, but I feel like more art classes are necessary. I plan to take at least one every semester. There is an animation life drawing class that is open to anyone and you don't get credit for it. I think it's relatively new. I had another class during it this semester though, but I made sure that I could go to it next semester.
I think looking at life and the figure is so important as an animator because that's the only way you can get teh feeling that it's real.
I understand that most of my classmates aren't interested in the same animation as me. They want to do documentary or abstract or 3D. Some want to work for Cartoonnetwork, but I'm not satisfied with that animation. I really would like to see 2D animation flow so fluidly like it used to and that's what I want to be part of.

Surenity

11-26-2009, 09:03 PM

I believe 2D animation will make a comeback, and can co-exist with 3D animation, once the novelty finally wears thin on CGI. This is just another lull in the waves, like the 60's and 70's were. People thought then that animation was dead too, and it was reduced to awful stuff like the dozens of Scooby-Doo rip-offs. If The Princess and the Frog doesn't help bring it back maybe the rumored Roger Rabbit sequel will.

Why am I so optimistic about it? Well you see, a long time ago, there was this French pigeon, who was working on a statue. And he said never say never. And I believed him.

johncbeggs

11-26-2009, 09:21 PM

things change, what we have to do Is use 3D animation to our advantege and reimagine 2D films to the public! almost like a fresh start, its how we sell it that makes all the difference ;)

AaronMocksing

11-26-2009, 11:29 PM

I'm certainly hoping three-dimensional films do stay, but certainly not to an excessive degree to which it becomes the most common medium out there; I think a few of the films Pixar and Dreamworks have done out there have been pretty amusing thus far, and they keep going on that.

On the other hand, traditional pen and ink and two-dimensional animation should be balanced to a considerable degree. It's been a fairly long time since I've seen anything otherwise, at least to my knowledge, and I'm certainly looking around for good films for reference that are bringing it back. At some point, I am optimistic and hopeful that 2D finally eases it's way back - as Surenity pointed out. And I concur that so many talking-animals-with-crimesolving-bandmembers did pretty dominate most of the 70s. It may wind up becoming a boom again with Disney's return to it soon.

Seems early to tell, but I suppose we'll find out when it's released. =)

My lifelong dream was to be apart of something like this; my first film was in fact, Rock-a-Doodle. XD; Well, that an All Dogs Go to Heaven; both of which were very wonderfully done. ^^ Artistically in all parts of the film, from the ground up. =D

westmunz

12-07-2009, 12:45 PM

I think the introduction of 3d animation will be much like the introduction of the camera. At first everyone thought painting would die out because you could just take pictures instead. However, painting never did go away. In fact the camera opened up new worlds for painting because painters were no longer relegated to trying to create realistic pictures. They were soon free to explore new looks and styles and ways of painting instead of being tied down to photo realistic works. So in much the way the camera freed up painters to experiment with new ways of painting we should look at 3d animation as a freeing process for 2d animators. No longer tied down to trying to create hyper-realistic characters (which seemed to be the direction 2d was headed) 2d animation is now free to explore new styles and ideas. I have always noticed how beautiful pencil tests look only to see some of the magic be lost in the process of transferring it to cels. With computers nowadays I don't see why we can't incorporate more of the raw qualities of the pencil tests into the finished product. I definitely see this whole thing as a liberating process. In fact, if 3d animation didn't come out when it did, animation probably wouldn't be as popular as it is now - and what tends to happen when something gets very popular like 3d animation is people become intereseted again in the field as a whole. This all leaves a very big opening for someone making new innovative 2d animation to succeed. So I can't wait to see what we're in store for!

Rodney

12-07-2009, 01:14 PM

I like the way you put that!

Concerning the fight for 2D versus 3D usually the best depends on what I'm currently looking at. There is so much to gain from both.

roxyryoko

12-07-2009, 06:39 PM

jtq3

12-09-2009, 01:18 PM

I have been hearing about the demise of 2D animation since I graduated from high school in 1982. That is long before many of you were born. Relax. 2D isn't going anywhere.

CG offers a greater range of sophistication in color, texture and camera moves. 2D artists will have to learn to exploit 2D for the unique qualities it has to offer. Great characters and storytelling are important but, look at the work of John and Faith Hubley, Frederic Back, Richard Williams etc. These artists mined the depths of what a 2D medium had to offer and used that 2D medium to tell great stories with great characters.

My criticism of the animation industry is too many of it's creative people look backward. No one wants to bring a unique point of view or fresh voice to the industry because they all want to emulate the work of the artist who have inspired them. Mary Blair and Milt Kahl were great and their work will stand the test of time. But, an industry filled with imitators of the past will not evolve and grow.

The same can be said of Anime. Is there an unwritten law which states everything must fit within a specific aesthetic?

jeremyhopkins

12-11-2009, 11:16 AM

My criticism of the animation industry is too many of it's creative people look backward. No one wants to bring a unique point of view or fresh voice to the industry because they all want to emulate the work of the artist who have inspired them. Mary Blair and Milt Kahl were great and their work will stand the test of time. But, an industry filled with imitators of the past will not evolve and grow.

Might be a good time to bring up the new The art of the Disney Princess (http://www.amazon.com/Art-Disney-Princess-Glen-Keane/dp/1423123719/ref=pd_sim_b_3) book since it contains many different artistic voices on subject we all know very well.
Part of the challenge we face going forward as artists is how to we integrate and work as a group but maintain our own voice. I've seen so many friends burn out on animation because they become just a tool for production. They may have steady work but they're in an environment that doesn't encourage creativity or self expression. For some jobs this is enough, we can get by without being inspired, but it's not enough for a creative endeavor that has to connect with audiences.

I don't believe there's anything wrong with studying the past and being inspired by the masters for technique but it has to be tempered with our own observations and experiences. If we copy a story template or try to be artist 'x', it'll always feel disingenuous. Sincerity is not only knowing the character's motivations but knowing and being honest to our own thoughts, feelings and experiences. These are the big issues that we face in the industry today and finding the balance between personal and professional work is important since personal work can push boundaries and professional work can refine some of the rough edges.

jeremyhopkins

12-11-2009, 11:38 AM

The same can be said of Anime. Is there an unwritten law which states everything must fit within a specific aesthetic?
Yeah, I don't fully understand either since I'm a gaijin but my girlfriend tells me it's partially due to the culture of conformity in Japan. This clip of Miyazaki talking about Up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDJr8brI7a8) is interesting. Hope I understand correctly but he really enjoyed the first 15 minutes because everything is presented so well. Now he's feeling some pressure to push his work. I'm not sure how this will affect Miyazaki's films in the future but he has a unique relationship with Pixar and Aardman and it's cool to see how these filmmakers influence eachother.

AaronMocksing

12-14-2009, 07:14 AM

Ed Catmull, the president of Disney animation and Pixar made a speech at my school today. He mentioned several times how "stupid" it was for Disney to stop making 2D animation. So I'm taking this as a sign that there will be many 2D films to come. : )

Really? That's pretty awesome. =)

From a viewers standpoint, I can agree. ^^ To see a nice mix of 2D and 3D films together would be a nice change of pace for awhile; I suppose in my opinion, 3D seems more like building something as opposed to the former, which is more fluid and seems more like making animated illustrations come to life from page to page.

ManWithGoodTaste

12-16-2009, 06:44 PM

Obviously, 2D animation has taken a backseat to CG. Everyone seems to have an opinion about why. Some say it's too expensive, which I think is baloney since 3D pictures have turned out to be more expensive than hand-drawn. Others say it is because the public has grown tired of 2D. Myself, I believe the fault lies in two areas. First, the 2D animation stories are not very well scripted; I know this from my own personal experience. Second, when all the live-action studios jumped into the animation business with no previous experience, they kept looking for cheaper ways to do things, and assumed the computers were the answer to that.
I think 2D animation is due for a revival but it must be good box office material! Does anyone agree?

I believe that the whole problem with stories in animated features lies with the way writers are chosen. It always must be someone who "specializes" in stories "for cartoons" or "children's stories".
The answer to the problem is to invite ANYONE whose ideas are interesting. There should be no restrictions of what kind of writers to use. Also, it should not matter whether a person is a professional or not. Your friend might write better stories that some industry's celebrities.
As an example, (try to get me right) I recently finished reading a Fan Fiction based of The Secret of NIMH, called "The Final Experiment". According to the author, he never had real writing experience before. The story is not finished yet, but I must say that that guy have talent, and LOTS of it.

So:
1. Invite anyone to write a story, famous or not famous.
2. Talent can not be measured on "mileage". A first time writer may create something that will make a professional eat his drafts.
3. Don't value your friends higher than people you just met. If you know somebody better it doesn't mean he/she can be a better writer.
4. Don't choose someone who specializes in writing for animation in particular. Look elsewhere if you must.

AND, THAT'S IT!!!~!!!

ericaanimation

02-04-2010, 06:56 PM

My opinion on 2D animation is very much the same as Mr. Bluth's. The story has to be there otherwise the animation regardless of the medium is going to fail. Another thing I think that has lead to the demise of 2D animation is that people always want something new in regards to technology and as soon as 3D animation came around everyone seemed to gravitate toward it leaving 2D in the dust because people think of it has "old hat." I personally hope that 2D animation makes a come back but with out a good solid hit in theatre it is going to be hard for companies to want to put money toward something they are unsure of if it is going to make the money. I think companies now days often get to caught up on how much money a film is going to bring in as profit instead of working toward the goal of creating something unique and inspiring. Not to say that there has not been some good films out of late because there has been. I just think there should be a balance in trying to create something for profit and a masterpiece. I do not believe that one actually cost more to amke then the other but rather companies are looking at the money brought in from the box office and sales. In conlcusion, I hope that some companies start producing 2D animation again even if it is alongside their 3D movie because traditional animation has held such beauty to me and is what I grew up with as a child.

Erica