Originally Posted By idleHands So what I'm reading between the lines in this thread, is the following: Traditional animation at Disney was temporarily tossed to the back burner, so that Disney could "justify" kicking their highly paid senior animators to the curb, to begin anew with less experienced animators, who (most importantly) require far less in the way of salary and compensation? Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but that's my take on all of this.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators You're reading too much in between the lines that isn't there. And yes, I think you are being too simplistic. Way too simplistic. Nothing was done in order to get rid of senior staff so that they could hire junior staff. That's patently absurd. Traditional animation, quite honestly, priced itself out of sustainability and executives made poor assumptions about returns at a time when salaries and production costs made it impossilbe to recover expenses. It's foolish to think that every animated feature will break $100Million at the box office. There are good runs, like any market, but endless runs of such returns when you're producing two such features a year is simply not a bankable proposition. They did not "kick their highly paid senior animators to the curb" either. Take stock at who is still on board, who bailed and went elsewhere, and who elected not to renew contracts or take run of production gigs, at a lower rate. Disney is not responsible for sustaining anyone's lifestyle - in spite of how much spin any single story or documentary wants to try to put on it. Nor is this the first such watershed period of layoffs at Disney, and you need only look at percentage comparisons to the 40's and 50's - when production was one film every two to four years - to see the same. Some departures were political in natures, and some were indeed short-sighted. The consolidation and the dismantilng of a successful unit in Orlando is a good example of a bad management decision, but to suggest they dumped everyone only to rehire the same at less money is ridiculous. It was far from being some Machievellian plot, and to imply as much is to be truly unaware of both the sometimes treacherous politics and painful practicality of making commercial films. Animation had a nice long run on a studio system that in live-action was dismantled decades ago. It wasn't going to last, and for anyone who started there at age 21 and thought it was going to last forever - welcome to real life. It's an industry, not an atilier, that's why it's called show BUSINESS.
Originally Posted By movieguy actingforanimators, you are , simply put, my hero. Thanks for your insight and for being the voice of reason.
Originally Posted By HRM I think the two key lines in the article for me, are: "[Chicken Little is] a genuine Disney cartoon, with a storytelling sense and graphic precision worthy of the old animation masters." and "Walt was well known for being an innovative guy. A lot of people thought it was funny that Disney didn't want to try the same experimentation." Story and execution are the key elements of a successful film. Studios will always go with what's popular at the time from a business profit standpoint (i.e. CG & reality shows; however, change is part of success also. I also agree with actingforanimators! I would like to introduce you to Imagineer This, although I doubt it will change the opinion of his/her posts blaming Esiner for everything... (kind of like how Bush is to blame for everything outside of Disney...) )
Originally Posted By ctdsnark I said it before,I'll say it again: CGI is different,but not better than traditional/cel animation,and I flat out refuse to accept the notion that it's dead!
Originally Posted By ElKay Wasn't there an article on JimHillMedia earlier this year that questions Disney's hyping of Chicken Little? I recall that it said that CL isn't on the same level as a Toy Story or Shrek and if expectations are too high, and it fails to draw a huge audience that it could really be bad for Feature Animation. It sort of sounds like the situation with Home on the Range, a high concept film, but really only an extented Tex Avery short subject. It bombed at the box office and wrecked hand drawn animation, not because of the way it was created, but because of the lousy characters and poor storytelling.
Originally Posted By basil fan I think Home on the Range has a lot of good characters. Just one bad one: Maggie. Though a good voice performance might've made her palatable. I don't think it was poor storytelling either, just one scene that felt like it didn't fit. Not really on-topic, I know, but I think if something you like is dissed, you oughtta speak up for it. Carry on about Chicken Little. The Perfect Collectible <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/collectible.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ disney/collectible.html</a>
Originally Posted By electra acting, I hope you are right about 2d coming back someday. And I hope I am wrong. But this "off" time for 2-d right now really sucks for me. For some reason if the film is done in 2-D i have a tendency to be drawn to it more, & I cant explain why...Theres just nothing coming from the studios on the horizon that interests me at all. Well correction: I was sorta looking forward to Corpse Bride & I just saw it last week, & I thought it was lovely.
Originally Posted By ctdsnark The fact that Corpse Bride,and the Wallace & Gromit movie are made in stop-motion is cause for celebration,proof that traditional animation isn't as dead as Hollywood currently assumes.
Originally Posted By basil fan The more I think about this article, the more it bugs me. >They kept making serioso dramas with >soaring Broadwayesque scores Disney hasn't made an animated feature with a "Broadwayesque" score since Hercules & Mulan. And neither Groove nor Home on the Range could be classified as "serioso." Nor would I put Brother Bear or Atlantis in that category. Basil of Baker Street <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/basil/bakerst.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ basil/bakerst.html</a>
