Originally Posted By AutoPost This topic is for Discussion of <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/Latest-ID-81864.asp" target="_blank"><b>Latest: Disney Guts Hand-Drawn Animation Department with Recent Layoffs</b></a> <p>CartoonBrew.com reports the layoffs by Disney this week hit the hand-drawn animation department particularly hard with many top animators being let go and perhaps more to come via buyouts or pay cuts.</p>
Originally Posted By basil fan I didn't know Disney even had a hand-drawn animation department. Man from Atlantis Glitches <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/glitch/maglitch.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/...tch.html</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip That was my thought. Disney has produced so few hand-drawn features lately that I'm almost surprised they still had a hand-drawn animation department. I would have assumed they just hired animators on contract when they were working on a feature.
Originally Posted By mawnck A must-read, at the Animation Guild Blog (and don't miss the first comment from "David", who I think may be onto something): <a href="http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/closing-door.html" target="_blank">http://animationguildblog.blog...oor.html</a>
Originally Posted By Manfried The comment from David is so much BS. If the movies had been successful, they would still be making hand-drawn animated films. But they weren't, it is that easy. You don't have to like it, but that's the business facts. No conspiracy at all.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 I don't believe there is a conspiracy, but who is to blame for the lack luster results of the latest animated features? The artists? I don't think so. I would hold the people in charge responsible. Lasseter seems to be the golden boy at Disney at the moment. He has guided Pixar, fixed DCA but can't find a way to do something viable with hand-drawn animation? I'm not buying it.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Yeah I gotta go with Manfried here. 'Home on the Range,' 'Brother Bear,' -- even 'Princess and the Frog' -- just not great stories. To me, it has lvery ittle to do with the fact they are .hand-drawn. 'Chicken Little' is CGI and it's terrible. 'Meet the Robinsons' is CGI and is sort of all over the place. 'Bolt' is CGI and is just okay -- it's a movie that might have worked well on 'The Wonderful World of Disney.' The biggest issue in my opinion? Too many animated movies. Period. Years ago, Disney produced an animated movie once every four years. Now it's two per year. Animation is expensive, and they aren't all going to be blockbusters. And like Imagineering, it gets expensive to have 'star' animators on the payroll sitting around and sketching character ideas on pieces of paper. The industry is ready for something new. I'm tired of the look and feel of CGI and think that the sameness of so many of them is the problem. Audiences are bored.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>The comment from David is so much BS.<< Did you even read the first comment from David? Because your "rebuttal" doesn't even refer to it. His point was that the most prominent animators who were laid off also did CG, so it couldn't have been just that their hand-drawn services were no longer needed. The main thing they seem to have in common is that they are veterans who command higher salaries. An additional comment from TAG's Steve Hulett has been added: >>There was a push to do more hand-drawn features when Lasseter and Catmull arrived, but the studio (Iger) didn't want to go al in. The under-performance of Princess and Winnie the Pooh ... and over-performance of Tangled determined the studio's course. CG is the wave Disney will now ride. Animators have told me that John Lasseter's enthusiasm for hand-drawn pictures has waned. (He can read box office returns as well as anybody. And he wants to ride winners, not losers.) John and Ron are working on a CG-hand-drawn feature that looks computer generated. There's a (partial) hand-drawn short in production, but WDAS is not interested in carrying its hand-drawn staff. (They were told last year that their time at the studio was finite.) Added to which, Iger told different divisions to cut back so animation is laying off staff it considers fungible. You would do this differently, I would do this differently, but this is a large entertainment conglomerate we're talking about, not Walt and his smallish animation studio. As I tell members over and over: Conglomerates don't care. Learn to deal with it.<<
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <John and Ron are working on a CG-hand-drawn feature that looks computer generated> What's the point in doing that? Would it not be easier to just create a CGI feature, than a hand-drawn that looks CGI? Bizarre.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <.I quote that from A.O. Scott when he reviewed "Princess and the Frog". If you want a 2-D animated film done right, it has to have two things: a great new story and a great new style.> What AO Scott said.
Originally Posted By Manfried Yes I read Dave's post. And it was not a conspiracy. Now maybe those highly paid hand-drawn animators will go out and make a really terrific film. That would be terrific! I think they got comfortable in their positions. When Disney was doing one film every four years did you really think they were all that great? I mean "The Black Cauldron?" "Fox and the Hound?" Really?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>What's the point in doing that?<< Ask the guys who just won an Oscar for "Paperman".
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Now maybe those highly paid hand-drawn animators will go out and make a really terrific film. That would be terrific! I think they got comfortable in their positions.<< Except that's not what the post said either. It specifically said they had CG animation experience. That has nothing to do with some fat cats getting lazy in their hand drawn animation positions. The better question is, if Disney is shuttering 2D animation in favor of CG, why are they laying off people experienced in CG?
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "The better question is, if Disney is shuttering 2D animation in favor of CG, why are they laying off people experienced in CG?" It's probably as simple as they had too many animators compared to what their foreseeable future projects will be.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA >>What's the point in doing that?<< Ask the guys who just won an Oscar for "Paperman". That movie is hand-drawn but looks CGI? Again I ask -- why would you need to do that?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The problem with Home on the Range and other later Disney features was that they seemed very much focus-group or written by committee. The creative staff being let go were probably boxed in by a management structure afraid to rock the boat. There was a tried and true Disney formula and I think they didn't dare stray too far off the beaten path. I hope those let go are able to create their own films. I think that's the best chance for something really fresh and new.
Originally Posted By ecdc So what Kar2oonMan said. The notion that 2D animation is somehow a genre that's just fallen out of public favor, like Westerns, is beyond absurd. It's a style, and the style could be as popular as ever, if the stories were good. If Beauty and the Beast or Lion King were released today, would they be duds just because of their animation technique? Doubtful. It's hard to ruin a really good story--lousy production values, terrible acting, poor editing--it can make it happen. But start with a lousy story...it's hard to fix.
