[DisneyDriver]

By RICHARD VERRIER AND CLAUDIA ELLER
Los Angeles Times
10/12/2003



HOLLYWOOD -- In Walt Disney Co.'s upcoming animated tale "Brother Bear," an American Indian boy is transformed into a 7-foot grizzly and has trouble adjusting to his new body.

Meanwhile, Disney is undergoing a radical transformation of its own, experiencing wrenching internal changes in its bedrock animation business.

For the first time in decades, the entertainment giant that pioneered feature-length animation with 1937's "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" has no traditional animated big-budget movies in production.

The sea change comes as audiences and most Hollywood studios have largely shunned traditional 2-D hand-drawn animation in favor of cartoons that feature dazzling, lifelike images generated on a computer.

"The realities are that consumer expectations are now driven by a new type of animation that has three dimensions," said Jeffrey Logsdon, a media analyst with Harris Nesbitt Gerard.

Two costly traditional animated features released in the past year, Disney's "Treasure Planet" and DreamWorks SKG's "Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas," bombed at the box office. By contrast came the soaring success of those studios' respective computer-generated blockbusters "Finding Nemo," in partnership with Pixar Animation Studios, and "Shrek," further helping to turn the animation industry on its head.

Most of Disney's competitors are focused exclusively on producing digitally animated movies for their big-budget offerings. Archrival DreamWorks has abandoned hand-drawn animation for now.

One of the rare exceptions in the march toward digital is Universal Pictures, which along with Imagine Entertainment plans to produce a 2-D version of the classic children's series "Curious George." The studio originally had planned a more expensive digital version. It opted for a lower-cost 2-D format, viewing it as a better creative fit with the original book character.

Nickelodeon Movies has a couple of 2-D movies in the pipeline, but its slate is heavily dominated by computer-generated or mixed-media animation projects, including a 3-D version of "Mighty Mouse," to be directed by live-action filmmaker John Woo.

The 3-D technique "lets us create worlds never seen before, and that's what people look for on the big screen," Nickelodeon executive Julia Pistor said.

2-D's success closely watched

The industry will closely watch the performance of the 2-D "Brother Bear" for what it may portend for traditional animated movies.

The film, which opens in Los Angeles and New York on Oct. 24 and premieres nationwide Nov. 1, is one of only two remaining major 2-D movies in the company's lineup. It will be followed by next year's "Home on the Range." Each film cost about $100 million.

Animators in Orlando, Fla., are working on a third movie, tentatively called "A Few Good Ghosts," which is half computer-generated and half 2-D.

Disney animation chief David Stainton, plucked from the company's ranks in January to turn around the struggling animation division, stressed that Disney was by no means abandoning its traditional medium.

"I absolutely stand firm that 2-D is not dead," said Stainton, noting the company has several ideas for movies that may end up as traditional animated productions or blends of various media. "It really depends on the filmmakers' vision and story. The technique is a secondary consideration."

But Stainton also has made clear that 3-D increasingly will play a larger role in Disney's future. Stainton, who prides himself on breaking conventions in Disney's storied division, shocked longtime animators this year when he asked them to produce classic fairy tales such as "The Snow Queen" and "Rapunzel" entirely on computers.

Layoffs, sell-offs not bright signs

In December, Disney animators received an internal e-mail alerting them that the tools of their trade were being sold at a company auction in an off-site warehouse. Among the items listed in the memo was an animation desk for $1,299; a story board for $54.15; and a 6-foot-tall cabinet for stacking scenes for $64.95.

"The fact that they would sell a significant amount of equipment needed to make traditional animated movies says as much as the layoffs do," said Kevin Koch, president of Hollywood's local animation guild and a staff animator at DreamWorks.

In the past two years, Burbank-based Disney has slashed more than 700 jobs in its animation unit, leaving about 1,000 workers, and reduced animators' salaries by 30 percent to 50 percent.

Just last week, Disney shuttered its animation unit in Tokyo, laying off 103 employees. This summer Disney closed its Paris animation studio, with a staff of 89, and laid off 50 animators at its Orlando facility where "Brother Bear" was produced.

Compounding the pressure on the movie is the potential loss of the longtime partnership with Pixar, creator of such digital smash hits as "Finding Nemo," "Monsters, Inc." and the "Toy Story" films. The two companies are locked in contentious negotiations.

Like 'closing up Disneyland'

To strengthen its digital capabilities, Disney signed a four-picture deal with "Shrek" producer John Williams and his Vanguard Animation outfit last summer to develop a slate of moderately budgeted 3-D movies. The first will be "Valiant," a $40 million comedy about a World War II carrier pigeon, which is expected for release in 2005.

Although Disney will continue to produce 2-D animation for television shows as well as lower-budget theatrical films and direct-to-video releases, even that unit is venturing into digital. Disney is working on its first fully digital direct-to-video feature, "Mickey's Twice Upon a Christmas," due out next year.

Although industry analysts view Disney's transition into digital as a necessary response to changing market conditions, some observers lament the aggressive push into the new medium.

"To me, it's startling that they would walk away from a medium that they are truly synonymous with," said David Koenig, who wrote a book on Disney animation. "They invented traditional animated feature films, and to me this is the equivalent of closing up Disneyland."

__________________

Lanyards are hidden hidden. Turn them on in your options

"...and you'll want to stow away cameras, purses, hats, and of course...these little
beauties!"



Click here to become a Talk Disney Premium Member

[minnie*mickey]

do u think this is a way to stray from pixar?

[DisneyDriver]

As much as I am very disappointed that there is a direction in "non-traditional animation", Disney would be very foolish not to promote in-house projects.

The relationship with Pixar is on shakey ground as it is. I would love to see the relationship continue to grow between the two...but as they both posture themselves for future projects...who can tell?

[Pete Fan]

I'm all for 2-D as well , down with the polygons! !

[minnie*mickey]

DisneyDriver said:As much as I am very disappointed that there is a direction in "non-traditional animation", Disney would be very foolish not to promote in-house projects.

The relationship with Pixar is on shakey ground as it is. I would love to see the relationship continue to grow between the two...but as they both posture themselves for future projects...who can tell?

i hope they keep together but from this article it seems that disney is trying to do what pixar does and that scares me. because it seems that disney is trying to become independant from pixar 3d animation and develop their own. anyone else have an idea about this?

[MickeysGirl]

I think a deciding factor here may be money. It usually is.
If Disney & Pixar find that what they do together is more valuable than what they do separately, they will soon find a way to work together.
I am also optimistic regarding 2D animation. Here if for no other reason the voice of the public will eventually be heard. But though CGI is less expensive, I feel that there will be stories that will need to be told through 2D and therefore it will never go away.

[minnie*mickey]

MickeysGirl said: I think a deciding factor here may be money. It usually is.
If Disney & Pixar find that what they do together is more valuable than what they do separately, they will soon find a way to work together.
I am also optimistic regarding 2D animation. Here if for no other reason the voice of the public will eventually be heard. But though CGI is less expensive, I feel that there will be stories that will need to be told through 2D and therefore it will never go away.

yep it definetly is less expensive, im a CG major at college, and ive heard that, and your right the public will be heard and people will want 3d animation, new technology is always more popular, people always want bigger and better, and sooner or later 2d animation will be a thing of the past (if it isnt already)

Ok folks, here's the deal. 2D is NOT dead, nor sleepy, nor groggy. This is an issue involving those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Disney's 2D features are a tradition, a hand-crafted series of masterpieces that require years of hard work to complete. Granted, "Brother Bear" was a mess, a brainchild of Eisner, but so was...hmm, a TV show based on the Gummy Bears, because HIS CHILDREN LIKED THEM?!?
Never heard of it? good. That's cause it °°°°°°, but then, so do all of Big Mikey's ideas of late.
Of course money is a deciding factor in the ending of an Era here, Disney is more a business, and less of a creative force in recent years. Let's brainstorm. "Treasure Planet" makes less cash than "Finding Nemo" and Disnessman asks, how is "Finding Nemo" different than "Treasure Planet"? Being unoriginal, non-creative and wholly shallow on the matter, our suit thinks he's found the answer in that "Finding Nemo" has more technology built in! Kids love technology! He fails to note the better script, more original ideas and livelier pace of "Finding Nemo." And so do many people, so it would seem.
3D is great, don't get me wrong, but anyone who thinks it can "replace" or take over 2D animation is clearly of the wrong mindset. I liked "Finding Nemo" too, but hey, I (and the world's children) are not so dumb as to think we liked it because it was 3D, we liked it, and it was successful because it was entertaining. So was the Lion King, and every piece of entertainment out there that was well written, designed and executed. So don't tell me that "2D is dead."
Traditional Animation has a personality, a liveliness, a hand-crafted feeling that 3D does not approach, especially to those of us who know how to do it. Compare it to anything hand-crafted versus something machine made. There is more value to it because more work went into it. Don't lecture me that I think 3D is simple and brainless, I know it's difficult as well. But anyone can do it well given enough time and training. 2d requires talent, and more of it. EVERY FRAME is hand-rendered, not inbetweened by a machine.
Disney should have hired a couple good writers rather than firing a few hundred skilled artists. They've ripped their own heart out, and without Pixar they're gonna slowly bleed to death.

[minnie*mickey]

i disagree on one part about 3d animation being easy and brainless, im a computer graphics major and its far from easy, it takes just as much talent as 2d animation, u still have to come up with 2 dimensional drawings and then convert them into 3d animation, its a very time consuming job just as 2d animation is, to compare the 2 is injustice because they are 2 totally different things, unless u are a computer and artistic genius u cant call it an easy job, in addition to knowing how to draw u need to know how to run a computer and its programs

I appreciate the addition, please note that I did not intend to insinuate that 3d was easy and brainless, I was attempting to say that it was not...however.
3d animation will never require the same amount of talent injected into every frame. In the best stuff, good characters are created, modelled, rigged, and animated pose-to-pose by an inspired animator to a genius script. It can take as little as 2 months once you have the models to animate an entire feature. The most time-consuming aspect after the models is usually the rendering. Obviously, one needs to know the 3d programs, but other than that, running a computer is as easy as clicking buttons. Especially on a Mac. It's not like you can mess it up too bad, and if you do, you just buy a new one. But that's a seperate subject. As mentioned, I have nothing against 3D animation, I'm just arguing for traditional.
In 2d every frame is touched, drawn, thought of by a team of artists. It takes at least 9 months to rough a feature, then there's coloring. It's just plain more work done by more talent, and I call that a good thing. It costs more to pay more talent for more time, and that's 2d's biggest pitfall in the business world.
I was a Computer Graphics major too, but I eventually quit because I felt disconnected from the work... too much pushing poly's and too little creativity. I'm still a computer geek, just a creative computer geek with a pencil. I agree that the comparison is difficult. The big question is, do kids really care which medium they're watching? I don't think so. "Finding Nemo" would have been just as successful if it were done with pencil on paper.

[minnie*mickey]

i love 2d animation just as much, but when it comes down to it is that technology will always conquer whether we like it or not, people are always looking for the hip and new, rather then being traditional, the only reason i got into computer animation and not just regular animation is because i will always have something to fall back on, computer wise, see if i just became an animation major my job opportunites would be limited, but i changed my major to computer graphics , so in addition to knowing how to draw i can also work on computers, because the job world is a difficult place right now, but agree 100% 2d animation is great

My point is that people (most people) don't care that what they're watching is or is not the most awesome visual they've ever conceived, the emphasis should be on story.
If you become a 3D major your job opportunities would still be limited, for you will not be able to animate on paper. I believe that to discount 2D animation as a dying breed of entertainment is to short-change the future of art. Just as painting hasn't been replaced by computers, 2D will not be replaced by 3D. 3D is no longer new and hip, its old news like everything else. Almost anyone can do it, just like painting. 3D folks know computers, and can animate with keyframes, 2D folks know animation and can animate with keyframes, and some of em know computers too. Something to think about. 3D is a different way of doing it, not just a new way, and people will always long for the look of Disney's animated features. It's always good to be able to work on computers, but it's a skill that artists should have, not THE skill that artists should have.

[minnie*mickey]

i understand where u come from, alot of people get into this feild and lack the skills of creativity, just because they know computers they think they can do anything , which is not the case, but in our requirements for computer graphics we have to know how to do 2d animation, and to become a computer graphics major i had to know how to draw, i had to gather a portfoilo and everything just to be accepted into the program, but with that said, i agree that animators need to focus on the story line and not quality of the animation, which is something disney havent completly lost, that touch, only when they do sequals and things like that.

[MouseMan]

You have to have a story, well told, with interesting characters that transmit heart to interest an audience. The visuals are equally important, but giving up on the traditional is truly a knife in the back of what the company was created on in the first place!

Forget the technique for a moment. Compare the feelings one gets when watching Snow White or Cinderella. Then compare that to Dinosaur. Technique is not a strong enough basis to alter the history and course of the studio. Disney himself embraced new technologies, however, he would not have allowed traditional animation to suffer at the hands of it! Even he was put off by Ken Anderson's usage of the xerox machine for 101 Dalmations, even telling him after it was such a success on initial release that he didn't want to see any more like that! Improving the storytelling and utilising new techniques for feature animated films is one thing. Stoping production on them due to the fad of computer animation is such a big mistake that it's embarassing for the studio. And don't get me started on Eisner!

[Disney Jedi]

For 2-D Animation, I am! Traditional for Disney, it is.

Love the traditional animation of all Disney, I do.

Sad, I will be if 2-D animation will disapear in this Disney universe.