Hand-drawn animation: RIP
Starbuck
No New Hand-Drawn Films Being Turned Out at Disney
Following the costly failure of Treasure Planet early this year and the
generally poor performance of other hand-drawn animated films, Disney for
the first time in decades has no traditional animated features in
production, the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday. Entertainment analyst
Jeffrey Logsdon of Harris Nesbitt Gerard told the newspaper, "The realities
are that consumer expectations are now driven by a new type of animation
that has three dimensions," referring to computer-generated films like the
Pixar-produced Finding Nemo, which Disney distributed and which went on to
become the top-grossing film of the year. Nevertheless, Disney animation
chief David Stainton told the Times that the success of a movie "really
depends on the filmmakers' vision and story. The technique is a secondary
consideration."
Grand Inquisitor
> become the top-grossing film of the year. Nevertheless, Disney animation
> chief David Stainton told the Times that the success of a movie "really
> depends on the filmmakers' vision and story. The technique is a secondary
> consideration."
>
>
Swill. Akira, Castle in the Sky, Spirited Away, none of these would
have worked nearly as well had they been all CG. By that logic, a
claymation Akira should have been every bit as good as the animated
version. No wonder Disney makes such crap if this is what their
animation chief believes.
--
"Get rid of the Range Rover. You are not responsible for patrolling
Australia's Dingo Barrier Fence, nor do you work the Savannah, capturing
and tagging wildebeests."
--Michael J. Nelson
Grand Inquisitor
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost
Jay G
"Starbuck" <star...@noserver.com> wrote in ...
> Could've called this one months ago. In fact, I did!
You're about two months too late:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vjsh2kat2dgi19%40corp.supernews.com
> No New Hand-Drawn Films Being Turned Out at Disney
<snip>
> Nevertheless, Disney animation chief David Stainton told the
> Times that the success of a movie "really depends on the
> filmmakers' vision and story. The technique is a secondary
> consideration."
It's good to know there's at least one person at Disney that
still has his head on his shoulders, unlike the other headless
Chicken Littles running around over there.
-Jay
Starbuck
news:1jIib.40355$KJ5....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> Starbuck wrote:
> > become the top-grossing film of the year. Nevertheless, Disney animation
> > chief David Stainton told the Times that the success of a movie "really
> > depends on the filmmakers' vision and story. The technique is a
secondary
> > consideration."
> >
> >
>
> Swill. Akira, Castle in the Sky, Spirited Away, none of these would
> have worked nearly as well had they been all CG. By that logic, a
> claymation Akira should have been every bit as good as the animated
> version. No wonder Disney makes such crap if this is what their
> animation chief believes.
Gosh, then I guess it's lucky for me that I didn't say that "Akira, Castle
in the Sky, Spirited Away" would have worked better as CG. Read before you
write, monkey.
Ken
"Starbuck" <star...@noserver.com> wrote in message
news:u_Gib.31631$cK5....@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
GOOD FRELLING RIDDANCE!
Instead of wasting years drawing nearly the same scene a million times over,
let the computer do the grunt work so we that instead of waiting for years
for a movie, it's done in months.
Instead of forcing legions of animators to do the ''tweening'' frames for a
film, they are freed to work or scores, if not hundreds of films, allowing a
vaster array of animated art to be released.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Computer animation will replace hand-drawn animation the same way
movies replaced live theater, the way word processing replaced handwritten
notes, the way telephone replaced written letters, IOW "replace" but not
"totally replace".
ANIM8Rfsk
<< Instead of wasting years drawing nearly the same scene a million times over,
let the computer do the grunt work so we that instead of waiting for years
for a movie, it's done in months.
Instead of forcing legions of animators to do the ''tweening'' frames for a
film, they are freed to work or scores, if not hundreds of films, allowing a
vaster array of animated art to be released. >>
PLEASE let these statements be such brilliant satire that I didn't even get you
were kidding.
___________
The American Teleservices Association
has a NEW phone line (at least for now)
1-317-816-9336
www.ataconnect.org
They don't want you to contact them.
Grand Inquisitor
Follow your own advice. I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to
the quote from the Disney idiot.
Ken
"ANIM8Rfsk" <anim...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20031014095359...@mb-m15.aol.com...
> << From: "Ken" kwicker_era...@ameritech.net >>
>
>
> << Instead of wasting years drawing nearly the same scene a million times
over,
> let the computer do the grunt work so we that instead of waiting for years
> for a movie, it's done in months.
>
> Instead of forcing legions of animators to do the ''tweening'' frames for
a
> film, they are freed to work or scores, if not hundreds of films, allowing
a
> vaster array of animated art to be released. >>
>
> PLEASE let these statements be such brilliant satire that I didn't even
get you
> were kidding.
A bit of hyperbole, but yes, the sentiment was accurate. While I believe
digital film and cgi are the waves of the future, I don't really give a
rat's crap about whether phong, gourod, rendering was used, how many pixels
or voxel was generated and animated, whether Maya or 3DS Max was used. I
don't care how pretty it is if it's an awful story. If it's stick figures on
notebook paper but a great story, then fine. For me, the visuals are the
bait while the story is the hook.
TITAN AE was a pretty movie, but all of humanity is threatened by aliens who
fly in ships that can be vaporized with ONE SHOT from a HANDGUN? While
fleeing an invading alien fleet, the refugees fly their ships TOWARD the
incoming fleet? I mean if invaders are attacking from the Northern
Hemisphere, I'm fleeing by the Southern Hemisphere.
FIFTH ELEMENT had great set designs, but why is the weapons dealer helping
to destroy the universe? If big bad Ultimate Evil can do mind control, why
pick on one relatively small-time weapons dealer? If the priest thinks
attacking Ultimate Evil is a bad thing, why does he wait until ONE MINUTE
before an attack fleet is due to attack before telling his good friend, the
Earth President?
PHANTOM MENACE, looked great, but might we not so blatantly rip off the
original series (from the STAR WARSesque rescue of a royal female and
blowing up an imperial base from one attacking at its achilles heel, the
EMPIRE STRIKES BACKian young jedi knight hanging above a long shaft before a
Dark Lord of the Sith, to the RETURN OF THE JEDIstyle hovering land race
thru obstacle courses)? And what precisely was the "phantom" menace in the
movie anyway?
Not that cgi can't be great: ANTZ, TOY STORY, TOY STORY 2, JIMMY NEUTRON, A
BUG'S LIFE, FINDING NEMO and of course, SHREK.
The key is the story.
If it takes less time to bring a good movie to screen because they are using
the computer for the grunt work, good.
If more artists are able to enter to release good movies because the cost of
moviemaking drops, good.
I see nothing inherent about pure hand-drawn animation that makes me prefer
it over cgi, and have seen with cell-shaded animation, cgi is getting closer
to mimicking the look of hand-drawn animation. CGI is only getting faster,
cheaper, better.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Sure, lowering the bar for the cost of creating movies (or tv or art)
allows more hacks to get in, but it also allows more great work to be
created who could imagine it but not reproduce the imagine into the real
world. That's the gamble of increased competition--and I much prefer that
than let one company have a stranglehold on the medium, be it Disney, Adobe
Photoshop, Microsoft, a handful of music studioes, a handful of movie
studies, etc.