Hello, I'm writing from Italy
I'd like your opinion on my post
------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And we should have realized so far that Eisner doesn't understand a yota about animation and that the whole marketing surveys department doesn't know anything about what Disney fans really want, if you hadn't noticed yet they're just having a look at what movies have done good at the box office and they are ripping off that movies formula
They saw Shrek was doing very good and they thought "let's copy this formula: CG and parody of fairy tales" and now we'll have "Chicken Little" and "Rapunzel" with pop culture cynism and bathroom jokes
But I think sooner or later viewers wil wake up and get tired of those cheap rip-off movies based on unoriginal marketing formulas
People love 2D animation, they love the warmth of hand-drawn animation, the brilliant color and the rounded lines and the cartoonesque/painting look; these are things that CG can't and will never reproduce it will always be realistic, dry and angular
Unfortunately Eisner just thinks that the failure of the poor plot, characters and storyline of movies like Atlantis and Treasure Planet are to be blamed on 2D animation and that these lame movies would have bombed if they're were CG
Eisner is that stupid that is last brilliant idea is to render all masterpieces in 3D
There are already sketches of old Donald 's short in 3D and even of Bambi and Little Mermaid 3D
Of course they were terrible !!

It's the same with 3D playstation game
Playstation keeps creating 3D sickening games even when 3D would not be necessary and yet lot of fans are complaining about the lack of old good funny 2D platforms ala Sonic or Mario Bros or Zelda
And it seems too that many people are already tired of CG movies and they would like to see some warm hand-drawn animation
Proof of this for example is the Oscar that Spirited Away won, and success of Emperors New Groove and Lilo&Stitch
But also the fact that Three Mosketeers was a success and very enjoyed by both Disney and non Disney fans and it hasn't been released at the theater in order to not disprove Eisner stupid theory that
hand-drawn animation is dead and that people want to see only CG animation
Dreamworks and Blue Sky too are only doing Computer Graphic Animated movies
And while Playstation and Sega creates only 3D games, while Disney kill its hand-drawn animation and all other animation producers create only 3D movies people is looking for lot of old cartoons, lot of anime and lot of good old Amiga and SNES 2D games
So, is people fond of 3D and CG? Yeahh, right...on their dreams
Just have a look at last Home Video box office data
2D animated DVD and VHS won over CG
Alladin, Pinocchio, Lion King, Peter Pan, Fantasia and Spirit all did great
And Disney Treasures Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse chronological shorts where such a success that Disney need to produce more of them because of a unexpected request
So the same children, kids and adults are now enjoying Donald Duck 1940 shorts are the same people are supposed to discard "old-fashioned" animation and like only compute and tecnology
Just because kids today have all the tecnology they want it doesn't mean they prefer it or are depedent on it
Kids today are coming back to old SNES and Sega games, they are coming back to paper colouring book, they stll love B&w and old cartoons, old Disney Classics and 2D animation
This is no to say progress is a bad thing, but unlike colour that was just an evolution of black and white that made black and white obsolete, CG is not an avolution of 2D is a completely different thigs and they have nothing in common
One is realistic computer rendering the other is had-drawn drawings
The two things keep co-existing in our life and computer is not in competition with drawings, they two different and there will always be painters, drawers, colouring paper books, comics, portraits .. all of this can't be changed by computer has computer has nothing to do with drawings and people love 2D drawings
The idea that hand-drawn can be compared to black&white and so it is going to evolve into CG is simply absurd
CG is not an evolution of hand-drawn like colour was an evolution for black&white, in fact it's a completely different medium with a completely different style that doesn't resemble or add nothing to an already limitless hand-drawn
They're so different that there shouldn't be a hand-drawn vs. CG issue
This is like comparing rock to rap
Is rap an evolution of rock and substituted every other musical style ?
Does rap makes rock irrelevant?
Can people who like rap also like rock and viceversa?
They're two different genre with nothing in common and no one is the evolution of the other, they were born in different places, for different purposes and for different tastes
Is cello an evolution of violin?
Or rather we need both to form a good orchestra?
CG is not an addittion to a limiting medium
In fact you can do with hand-drawn everything you can do with CG just with different visual style no one better than the other just different
Sound was added to silent movies, colors was added to black&white movies, now that's an evolution !! ...you expand a medium, but with CG you add nothing to the hand-drawn medium, you're dealing with a different medium on its own nor pertaining and certainly not evolving the hand-drawn animation
If silent movies was an artistic limited medium and they were evolved with sound, hand-drawn is not an artistic limited medium and CG is not a next step into its evolution but a completely different tool, with completely different characteristics
I would say that comparing hand-drawn with CG, considering the first an evolution of the latter is not only unfair to the hand-drawn artistis but it's also an insult to the CG artists
It would be an insult to violinists too comparing and measure their work
according to cello repertoire
As people like both a violin concerto or flute concerto and as both instruments are needed to form an orchestra, and as people like both jazz and rap and probably both are heard on radio, people like different styles on animation too
Just because people liked Nightmare Before Christmas it didn't mean stop-motion was preferred to hand-drawn or worst yet that it was an "evolution" of hand-drawn animation
I love all different styles
They all touch me in a different way and no one ever take the place of another in my tastes as they're so different that they can't replace each other but just exist on their own
And as for people claiming that Disney being an innovator would have shut the hand-drawn animation studio himself to replace them with CG animation were he alive I can only say one thing: hogwash
Disney never replaced two different mediums
When he began dealing with live-action, he never abandoned
hand-drawn animation, when he began dealing with documentaries he never abandoned live-action and hand-drawn aimation, and when he began the Snow White Project he didn't abandoned shorts productions
Surely he replaced black&white with color but this was not like replacing a medium with another but as I have said adding an additional characteristic to a limited medium that prior to the color addition was not
capable of showing color
The difference is so clear that it's a mistery to me how anyone would see it otherwise
Sorry Eisner, black&white vs. color has nothing in this world to do with hand-drawn vs. CG since we're not dealing with evolution of a limited medium but with the birth of a completely different medium with a completely different visual style

The problem with discontinuing hand-drawn animation in favour of CG animation is bigger than they think at Disney
Usually people don't like it when someone leave its field altogether to being a career in a different style he/she has not experience with and that already has its guru and exponents
Mariah Carey is well known for her style and people like her music or doesn't like her music because of this style
Let's say that Mariah Carey abandon her style and begin singing only Opera music (like Rigoletto for example)
What would happen?
Her fans would not forgive her for bashing her distinctive style in favour of one she has not hystory and experience with, but most important of all opera music fans would not forgive her for trying to imitate the piooners, the gurus of opera, those that have studies for years to work on this genre of music and that won many prices or have been rewarded for their successes, and they would never listen to opera pieces that they would consider a "watered" kind of opera
So the problem is by completely changing style she lose both her fans and both fans of her new musical style
If REM changed from their style to country music they would lose their fans that follow them for their unique style but they would also never attract country music fans as these people already know "who" shoud be listened for true, long-term experience, real country music
The point also is that by changing completely to country they would end up sounding like all the others losing their uique style that made them famous on the first place
And I'm sorry but I'm sure that's what is going to happen with Disney CG features
People already have their CG stars and guru (Pixar expecially) and when they want real CG movies from pioneers of CG and experieced CG artists they want Pixar
Walt Disney CG features will be considered like a secondary, watered down imitation of Pixar
So Disney is going to lose their numerous fans as they won't forgive Disney for not creating hand-drawn features at the moment, but CG fans would never give Disney a chance as they would consider their movies a pale tentative to imitate Pixar and would always prefer Pixar
Just like opera fans are very unlikely to be interested in Mariah Carey opera songs, CG fans are very unlikely to be interested in Disney CG animated features
Disney had only a chance to compete with Pixar by creating hand-drawn movies as it would have been considered something original that no one else is doing at the moment
Besides, Disney is going to lose its unique style that was the reason why people was interested in their movies, they are going to look like all the others with no special style or characteristics
Disney is going to lose all its potential audience with this foolish move

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

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

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

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

As if it weren't enough, this is another stupid sentence from Stainton
One thing David Stainton told the L.A. Times he knows for sure: the studio's core audience for animation is 4- to 10-year-olds. "If you think you're making a movie for everybody, you're making a movie for nobody."
Now, did they learn anything from Walt era
Movies like Bambi, Dumbo, Cinderella, Sword in the Stone were not aimed to children rather than adults or vicerversa
They were universally as the humour was universal, the characters was universal and the theme was universal
Any generation could identify itseld in these movies, people of any age
Little Mermaid used the same approach, it was a universal story with a message from anyone and children, teens, college students and adults all liked it
There were no reason to add more drama to attract adults or more kiddy stuff to attract children
When they did it: Hercules to attract teens, Hunchback to attract adults, Atlantis to attract middle school boys, they lost many of their potential viewers as they were not universal anymore
Now, Stainton not learning from the "new Disney" errors want to completely ignore Walt's lesson by making Chicken Little a movie for children with kiddy stuff... so it would be so stupid and "kiddy" that no one will like it, no adults nor children
Stainton said: "If you think you're making a movie for everybody, you're making a movie for nobody." but didn't Stainton realize that he has to make movies with round characters, interesting plot and universal themes instead of "making a movie for somebody in particular" especially when this is according to an arbitrary thing such as age?

I think we can support Roy Disney meanwhile in his battle to save Disney hand-drawn animation
Not only Roy is supported by fired and unemployed animators but by working on CG projects animators too
I don't know if Roy is dishonest or if he is so just interested in easy money and bad quality as Eisner but one thing for sure: he does know what good animation is
Disney Trasures, Destino and Fantasia 200 are all projects are now reality thanks to him ans he has showed to understand and be faithful about Walt visions
Having all Goofy shorts in one set is just enough to thank Roy
And again, the fact that many twenty century children, kids, and grown-ups are enjoying these shorts everyday (from Amazon and other shop online review) clearly show that 2D is not dead but that clearly Eisner mind is dead
No one ever said "I would have liked Atlantis if it were CG" as well as no one ever said "I would have not liked Finding Nemo is it were hand-drawn animation"
People don't give a yota aboutanimation style, they want good and original stories and this is what Pixar is giving them
The success of Spirited Away is the proof of how people love hand-drawn animation when the story is appealing and the characters are attractive

CG animation has a lot of cons and it is not any better than 2D animation, it's just a different thing
With CG you have more realism and a plastified translucent look
With 2D you have warm drawings in movement
Computer graphic and drawings have nothing in common
They're two different worlds and people love what only drawing can give to you
Because, let's face it, computer graphic will never win over drawings, they're not even in competition as they're so different
Children todays have computer to draw anything they want, but even within 100 years they will still be using pencils, paper and crayons to make beautifull coloured drawings
People love drawings and CG bubble will burst and will have a comeback to coloured 2D
Of course when the CG fad will fade people realize that all these CG products are bad rip-offs of the only father of CG features: Pixar
Pixar, I hope, even when people will get tired of this ridicolous CG fad, will keep creating its wonderful CG features

There are many surveys on internet about 2D vs CG and NO ONE so far has said anything about "preferring CG animation over hand-drawn one", hand-dranw animated features DVD are selling excellently and many hand-drawn animated movies and series are a success
Since there is not a world with people demanding more CG and ingoring or rejecting hand-drawn animation, this excuse that people want only CG as their states have changed and they now consider hand-dranw animation outdated, old-fashioned, boring, flat, uncool is simply a LIE, a WRONG, FALSE and UNSUPPORTED theory and a big idiocy

Daniel