![Oliver and Company [1988]](http://www.kartooner.com/blog/images/oliverandcompany.png)
My wife and I were watching the making of Disney’s Oliver and Company on DVD. Unlike today’s extensively (and sometimes exhaustively) researched “making-of” featurettes, you could tell this one was used moreso as a marketing tool. Halfway through the feature, the announcer mentions that Disney used “state of the art” computer technology as an aide to traditional 2-D animation.
The next scene shows an interview with Roy E. Disney who seems excited about the adaptation of computer technology and suggests that it’ll be a useful tool for future Disney films. Now here’s the kicker — towards the end of the computer animation bit the announcer reminds the viewers that while computer animation is a fantastic tool to aide in 2-D animation, fear not, for it will never replace traditional animation.
15 years later we’ve seen the immediate closure of Disney’s Florida Animation Studio in 2004 which “put approximately 250 animators, technicians and other personnel out of work.” — a move that many say ended the era of traditional animation and the rumor that Disney will redo many of their classic films using CGI (or Computer Generated Imagery).
Like many I’ve been extremely impressed with Pixar’s films, but also feel a bit saddened by the fact that traditional animation is viewed as something abitrary and stone aged. To me there are traditionally animated films that impress me moreso than computer-animated movies. Put it this way, to this day I’m still moved and in awe of many 2-D animated films (like The Jungle Book and Bambi) and mostly because of the fluidity and beauty that resonates via a few pencil strokes.
The secret to Pixar’s success, at least from what I’ve gathered from watching “making-of” featurettes and books, is their ability to dig deep into their subject matter, into the core of their film and its message and then flesh it out with CGI, something that is lacking in other animated films.
Related: The State of Animation Features by Michael Heilemann
Disney are only after the bottom line; money. There will always be talented animators using traditional methods that can do far better than the corporate entities, though may not be as visible. The Japanese market is a good example of this.
Obviously traditional hand drawn animation is less than stellar these days. I agree with your observations and would not attribute it towards the medium. Is CGI something revolutionary and super cool? Heck yeah, just look at the interior of the whale sequence of Finding Nemo. It is near impossible to get that kind of realism by hand drawing 32 frames per second. But I don’t think it’s the eye candy that makes Pixar flicks so popular.
Disney’s stories have been pretty boring and run-of-the-mill. There are no more brothers Grimm fairy tales to go ’round. Pixar has been developing stories that are unique and fun to watch over and over again. Maybe they are an unstoppable train with lots of talent aboard. It definitely is a major time of change for feature animation.
It’s not such a good time for us Disney buffs, but I’m sure there will be a resurgence of amazing hand drawn animation. It will be retro and funky, hopefully.
“but also feel a bit saddened by the fact that traditional animation is viewed as something abitrary and stone aged. To me there are traditionally animated films that impress me moreso than computer-animated movies”
Depends on your viewpoint. I don’t see great animation in terms of medium, but the ability to communicate story and emotion through whatever medium there is. You may be Mr Slickster with Maya, but some guy can come along and blow you away with a flicker pad. I reckon a good director can spot that. You nailed it on the head though - Pixar have really concentrated on character and story. Do I think of how cool the CGI is? From a technical viewpoint yeah because I’ve played with Maya a bit - but what it comes down to is I wanted them to find Nemo :) Even geeky me sees through the CGI and thinks about the character - that’s success.
Pixar vs Disney with only pencil and paper and fixed still camera? Pixar every damn time - they have the talent and the environment.
Of interest, an entry I wrote called The State of Animation Features.
“…Put it this way, to this day I’m still moved and in awe of many 2-D animated films…”
I think Japanese anime should also be considered when discussing the facets of 2-D animation. They have some epic stories that many of us never get to experience - I for one really enjoy high quality anime, as dorky as that may sound.
Damn good point Donnie that I’m ashamed to say I forgot about. Anime rocks :) Fell in love with that many years ago after going to an all-night screening of about six moviews :D
I tend to agree with the notion that Pixar has been successful as much for their concentration on story and characterization, as for the quality of computer animation. I think the power of animation is the ability to bring ideas to life that couldn’t otherwise be explored.
Sure, The Incredibles had great visuals, but it was one of the best movies of the year because of the interesting plot and wonderful characters. It also gave Craig T. Nelson more work, and can’t we all agree that Hayden Fox is THE MAN?
The Secret of NIMH isn’t my favorite animated movie because it has groundbreaking animation. I just love the plot. For my money, it’s still the most intriguing animated movie ever made.
If you ain’t got story, you ain’t got shit. Take a look at Robots.
Words to live by, man… hey, I’m a big Incredibles fan (just got the DVD) and it would be hard to imagine it done in 2-D. But as people have said here before it’s not about technology coolness (that can only take you so far) but how you tell your story. It could have been done with matchsticks, but if those matchsticks can move me with joy, melancholy, tears and emotion in general, then that’s what really counts. Whiz-bang technology without heart and soul put into it is nothing.
Disney lost it a number of years ago, more or less around completion of “The Lion King” (Lilo and Stitch being a singular exception to the rule) and the consolidation of the Eisner dark empire, whose only interest is to maximize returns in past glories recycling them ad nauseam (Pooh movies, anyone?) and milk the Mickey cow till it runs dry. Period.
Something many animation buffs ignore so easily these days is that it took a couple of former Disney artists -Don Bluth and Gary Goldman- to light some fire under Disney’s butt, releasing a number of films that signaled a renaissance of the art form in the mid-eighties, when Disney was already declaring animation dead (not the first time, huh). In fact, Don is my favorite animation director of all time and I feel he sadly doesn’t get enough credits or respect from the industry given his pivotal role in animation history.
Back then there was some rumor that Pixar could fund a school/filmmaking institution based in 2-D. Could it happen someday? I know Pixar has a LOT of respect for traditional animation… they could become 2-D’s saving grace.
I don’t have much to add - I hate that traditional 2-D animation is going away. I love Pixar for their storytelling. The 3-D work is cool (fantastically cool), but sticking feathers up your ass doesn’t make you a chicken.
Pixar has the goods. I haven’t seen much else that compares (besides some anime).
Alot of great input here, thanks for sharing. I could have elaborated on the fact that traditionally animated films from Disney as of late have been of poor quality but I left that open to interpretation.
Also, I agree in regards to Anime. However, when it comes to shows like Dragonball Z or shows with wacky titles like “Super-Hyper Go-Go Chicken Balls”, I’m not that impressed. On the other hand, movies like Spirited Away or anything by Miyazaki-san continue to impress me with their visuals and story. It’s an acquired taste no doubt but something that evokes a strong sense of imagination.