Will 2D animation die?

General Discussions, Polls, Lists, Video Clips and Links
Post Reply
AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1
Joined: June 26th, 2006
Contact:

Post by skycron » June 26th, 2006, 8:41 am

Ok, I'll bite.

No, 2D animation isn't going to die. Disney has just set up a small 2D unit for theatrical shorts, mainly the new Oswald ones. They're testing the water and will gradually expand until they venture to another feature (likely in the range of 15-20 million to start cautiously.) Ric Sluiter said this point blank when he came to lecture us at Sheridan.

I've spent so much time listening to animation fanboys (who aren't animators) -- not that I'm putting down fans in general mind you-- lecture about how 2D animation is dead and won't come back. Animation is cyclical. 20 years ago people were talking about how Phil Tippett's gomation (high-speed stop-motion with motion control assistance) process would render 2D animation obsolete, before that manual stop-motion. When one mentions these things somehow "3D is different". It's not. And now, thankfully, the people who think 2D is dead are finally gonna be silenced through evidence.

I think we're going to see 3D and 2D bottom out and start seeing modestly budgeted (15-30 million) features released at a rate of 2 or 3 years alternately within the next 2-5 years.

Since the panic is starting to die down a bit now that 2D's coming back a little bit, people can see things more objectively :) But a year ago people were calling blue murder.
http://www.skycron.com/

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 19983
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » June 26th, 2006, 12:40 pm

New Oswald shorts? Coooooooooooool! :)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 8329
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » June 26th, 2006, 4:23 pm

If you ever visit Animation Nation there is a guy there named Tom I think, who owns "Miracle Pictures." (He also took over the SaveDisney website and made it "SavedDisney".)

Anyway, he is supposadly in the process of making a series of 2d flicks. :wink:
Pinky, are you pondering what I’m pondering?

I think so, Brain, but if we didn’t have ears, wouldn’t we sort of look like weasels?

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 19983
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » June 27th, 2006, 5:42 am

And remember, if it's a good picture, it's a Miracle...! ;)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1934
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Post by Christian » June 27th, 2006, 3:23 pm

He didn't take over Save Disney. He just started a new site called saveddisney.com

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 19983
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » June 27th, 2006, 4:18 pm

And remember, if it's a good picture, it's a Miracle...! ;)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 8329
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » June 27th, 2006, 4:30 pm

Don't they have some kind of "staff uniform" over there with blue denim shirts?
Pinky, are you pondering what I’m pondering?

I think so, Brain, but if we didn’t have ears, wouldn’t we sort of look like weasels?

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7
Joined: June 27th, 2006
Location: Pimpin all over the world...currently residing in Florida.
Contact:

Post by 2good4u » June 27th, 2006, 9:58 pm

I'm not sure about the future of 2D animation. I can't say for sure that it will come back and I can't say for sure that it will die out. However, I like the classic animation much better than the CGI now. But if you ask me, the reason why Pixar hasn't made a 2D movie is because they don't have to. All of there movies are CGI so why would they fix something that isn't broken. If a company is successful in one thing, chances are they're gonna keep trying it. I don't think the animation choice has anything to do with the story. But that's just my opinion.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7
Joined: June 27th, 2006
Location: Pimpin all over the world...currently residing in Florida.
Contact:

Post by 2good4u » June 27th, 2006, 9:59 pm

I'm not sure about the future of 2D animation. I can't say for sure that it will come back and I can't say for sure that it will die out. However, I like the classic animation much better than the CGI now. But if you ask me, the reason why Pixar hasn't made a 2D movie is because they don't have to. All of there movies are CGI so why would they fix something that isn't broken. If a company is successful in one thing, chances are they're gonna keep trying it. I don't think the animation choice has anything to do with the story. But that's just my opinion.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 8329
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » June 28th, 2006, 1:10 pm

But if you ask me, the reason why Pixar hasn't made a 2D movie is because they don't have to. All of there movies are CGI so why would they fix something that isn't broken.
So why should anyone make 2d films at all? Why doesn't Disney just concentrate on making really good CGI films, especially now that they have Pixar's input? After all Chicken Little DID make a profit and got some good reviews.

Meet the Robinsons also looks like it will be successful, ditto Rupunzal and American Dog. But why does Pixar get a free pass when it comes to making 2d and Disney (WDFA) doesn't? It shouldn't be a matter of heritage because haven't so many people been saying that Pixar is "more Disney than Disney"? So by that logic, Pixar should have an even GREATER inclination to make 2d.

Sorry, not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make a point. :wink:
Pinky, are you pondering what I’m pondering?

I think so, Brain, but if we didn’t have ears, wouldn’t we sort of look like weasels?

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3845
Joined: May 31st, 2005
Location: Maryland

Post by Meg » June 28th, 2006, 3:04 pm

Meet the Robinsons also looks like it will be successful, ditto Rupunzal and American Dog. But why does Pixar get a free pass when it comes to making 2d and Disney (WDFA) doesn't?
Pixar is a CG animation studio - I can tell you right now, if it weren't for the success of their films, there'd be A LOT less CG films around nowadays. I don't have a problem with them not doing 2-D because they're not a 2-D studio.

Disney, however, has made a ton of 2-D films and has been making them ever since Snow White. I don't care at all about them doing CG, it's the fact that they dumped the 2-D unit that had basically made Disney what it is today that bothered me. I mean, if Pixar stopped making CGI movies and only made 2-D movies, I'd be jut as upset.

It's not just Disney who shut down their 2-D unit anyway...Guys like DreamWorks and WB did too.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 8329
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » June 28th, 2006, 3:31 pm

I don't care at all about them doing CG, it's the fact that they dumped the 2-D unit that had basically made Disney what it is today that bothered me.
Yeah, I can understand how you feel. I also wish they hadn't done that. They were making a conscious choice to embrace a new art form. That's exactly what Pixar does every time it makes a film. And it was JL, a 2d man, who made the choice to quit Disney in the early 80s and so did his colleagues. In a sense they also "dumped" 2d to go for 3d. (Ditto Brad Bird with the Inredibles.) They were partly making a business decision, because they needed to succeed and make money. Ditto WDFA. Like you said earlier, CGI would never have been popular as it is now if it hadn't been for Pixar.


Pixar may be Pixar but they were under the Disney name for more than 10 years. Even more so now. Pixar represents Disney whether they like it or not, it doesn't matter if they keep their hopping lamp or stay in Emeryville...it's "Walt Disney Pictures Presents." In my opinon it doesn't matter what happened in the past or what didn't happen--Pixar is Disney now and they should be held to the same standards and expectations. We tell Disney make fairy princesses again, make beautiful musical numbers, make romantic fantasies. Because all those CGI films are getting boring and monotnous. And yeah, that includes Pixar too. :roll:
Last edited by ShyViolet on June 30th, 2006, 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pinky, are you pondering what I’m pondering?

I think so, Brain, but if we didn’t have ears, wouldn’t we sort of look like weasels?

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1934
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Post by Christian » June 28th, 2006, 3:36 pm

The guys at Pixar always wanted to see other companies making 2D films. Even though they made CG films they were in no way out to destroy 2D. Now that Pixar and Disney are a little closer together the Pixar guys are going to allow Disney directors to make their films with little to no executive interference. Pixar may be more Disney than Disney in some ways but not in every way. Their films are basically like a Chicken Little that turned out a little bit better but they have never made any film (yet?) on the level of the great Disney fairy tale classics. Maybe they never even tried to so they shouldn't be knocked for not achieving something they didn't set out to do. What they do do is make modern stories with high production values, tight scripts and great visuals.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3845
Joined: May 31st, 2005
Location: Maryland

Post by Meg » June 29th, 2006, 1:43 pm

We tell Disney make fairy princesses again, make beautiful musical numbers, make romantic fantasies.
That's for the Walt Disney Feature Animation to do. Not Pixar.
Because all those CGI films are getting boring and monotnous.
Yeah, let's blame the medium for how bad most animated movies are nowadays instead of the people making them. :roll:

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 21
Joined: June 15th, 2006
Location: Bay area

Post by Shambler » June 30th, 2006, 3:50 am

ShyViolet wrote:So why should anyone make 2d films at all? Why doesn't Disney just concentrate on making really good CGI films, especially now that they have Pixar's input?
ShyViolet wrote:Pixar is Disney now and they should be held to the same standards and expectations.
Meg wrote:That's for the Walt Disney Feature Animation to do. Not Pixar.
How are you distinguishing who is who? The Pixar execs (Ed, John, etc) are running both studios now, and reporting directly to Bob Iger and Dick Cook.
Last edited by Shambler on June 30th, 2006, 4:29 am, edited 4 times in total.

Post Reply