Here's something you never hear or read:
"Only Warner Bros. can make money doing live action features ..."
Kind of stupid, right? But there was a remarkably similar conventional corporate wisdom that lasted for fifty years ...
"Only Disney can make money producing animated features."
This was pretty much what was heard from Culver City to Burbank from the time I was a teenager (and my old man was painting backgrounds for Sword in the Stone and Jungle Book), until the period when Jeffrey Katzenberg started to oversee new Disney blockbusters in the late eighties and early nineties. (The exception to this long-term rule being the Don Bluth-Steven Spielberg features American Tale and Land Before Time.)
But at the point where Jeffrey's band of Disney animators were creating mega-blockbusters one after the other, rival conglomerates threw long-time conventional wisdom over the rail and commenced making animated features for themselves. (Disney's billion-dollar grosses being too hard to resist.)
And whattayaknow? Every one of the big corporations, from Warners to Paramount to Ted Turner, performed multi-million dollar face-plants, cranking out flop after feature-length flop. And one by one, they exited the animation business.
Ah, but that was the 1990s and the age of the Number Two pencil. Now we are deep in the 21st century where c.g. feature-length cartoons are the new coin of the realm, and every conglomerate rakes in the long green with their own brands of computer-generated toonage. Universal has Chris Meladandri's Despicable Me. Disney has Pixar and its traditional house brand (Toy Story 3, Tangled.). Fox has Blue Sky Animation and the Ice Age franchise. Lastly, Viacom owns Nickelodeon and its DreamWorks Animation distribution deal. (Even though that deal may now be in jeopardy.)
With the release of Rango from yet another "new" animation studio (the visual effects shop Industrial Light and Magic), we are light-years past the moldy idea that only a chosen few can make animation. The genre is now the highest flying sector of long-form motion pictures for every big entertainment company, with a higher rate of success, more lucrative overseas grosses, and bigger sales in the DVD and Blu-ray markets than any other product Hollywood makes.
Little wonder then that more and more companies are tripping over themselves to set up animated production slates and create their own ninety minutes of box office magic. The axiom that "Only Disney can make any money doing animation" is more outdated than black-and-white silent melodramas.
Posts
33 comments:
These days, it's more like "Only Disney can't make money doing animation."
Um--Cars and it's anncilliaries have made more than the last 5 dw features combined. $9 billion to date.
Steve, it sounds like you are blaming the failure of non-Disney feature films in the 90's on pencils. Maybe they failed because of bad planning. These studios rushed to get on the feature bandwagon skipping the necessary development time needed to develop superior films that the public would be interested in seeing. When Disney started doing that, their films started failing, too. Coincidentally enough, they also blamed the pencils.
"Flop after flop" created by them dang pencil animators. Yep, 'Quest for Camelot' or 'The King & I' would have been better in CG, that's for sure. Thank goodness the day of the #2 Pencil has passed and now all the pencil animators are Number Two, right ?
Good thing there's never been a flop done in CG animation.
Whatever the merits of pencils, CG rebooted animation in the public's mind.
The newness of it made it possible for anyone with a billion bucks to get into the feature animation biz... even if they didn't have the Disney brand. Not having the Disney brand may have been an advantage.
Rather, a successful animated film no longer depends on the Disney skills.
Face it - computers are the great equalizer. They can overcome poor draftsmanship and acting skills to a staggering extent. Classic Disney 2D took years of apprenticeship to learn, and even then an artist could crap out if he didn't have the acting skills. Computers have made it possible for less-talented/skilled people to earn a living in animation, and for film companies to make a profit in animated films. Not to say that a good story isn't still key...which means, I guess, that computers can't improve the skills of a lousy writer. ;)
"Computers have made it possible for less-talented/skilled people to earn a living in animation"
Wow - way to show a tremendous amount of disrespect to your fellow animators. It's not their fault that 2D is currently out of favor - how about not blaming them for your inability to learn how to keep your skills current?
Bullshit. Sounds like someone's bitter.
If computer animation is the great equalizer, why is SO MUCH shitty CG animation made? Look at the hordes of TV, Games, and 2nd/3rd tier films that look like retarded monkeys made them.
The only thing separating previous generations from today is availability and opportunity. Before, you had to be one of the lucky few who got an internship at Disney to learn the craft, because Disney was the only shop who did it. NOW, there's online training you can do from the comfort of your own home. In that case, YES, computers have equalized people, because it increases exposure to the craft. But it certainly doesnt churn out a higher percentage of animators. You still only have the top 5% who "get it."
But if you think, in your ignorant little world, that you can be a bad actor and dont understand anatomy, composition, and cant sculpt an appealing pose on the computer (you know, like a fine artist does with clay), that you can still be a computer animator, then you're dumber than a surfer in Minnesota.
Sure, drawing is a difficult and challenging art form. But so is CG. Its more akin to stop motion animation. Would you call a stop motion animator a bad actor?
Ive been a CG animator for almost 10 years. Nearly everyone I work with was an accomplished artist before they were a CG animator.
So stop making yourself look like a fool.
PS) that was in response to Anon March 06, 2011 9:39:00 AM
Steve, it sounds like you are blaming the failure of non-Disney feature films in the 90's on pencils.
I read the same post, and didn't get that at all. I think those of you who think Steve is saying that the failures were due to those films being traditionally animated are reading with a bias. It's clear to me that that isn't at all what Steve meant.
Analytical reading seems to be a lost art in modern internet society.
Face it - computers are the great equalizer. They can overcome poor draftsmanship and acting skills to a staggering extent.
It's very simple to refute this tired and false cliche. Just look at what CG films have become big hits. The better the acting and performances, the better the films have done. Yes, there are exceptions, just like there were in hand-drawn films (some of the best animated Disney films flopped). But in general, the blockbuster films like Kung Fu Panda, HTTYD, the Ice Ages, and so on have all been masterfully animated by talented, veteran animators using exactly the same process as their 2-D peers.
Speaking as someone who has animated in both CG and hand-drawn features, I think the quality of animated performances in CG films being done right now is higher than what was done during the boom in the 1990's in films like Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin.
Regarding the issue of CG animators being artists or not, the quality of work being produced today is at the highest level ever. And yet there is a lot of crap being produced as well. Clearly one can be a stellar animator without any skills in drawing, painting, or sculpting. Acting skills and software proficiency is the magic combo. Being a good actor is an art form, but most of the newer CG animators I have worked with are NOT skilled in drawing and other traditional arts. So what? It is not required anymore to be a great animator. However, there are quite a few mediocre animators who can "hide" their lack of acting by tweaking and editing away under a supervisor's direction, something that would never be able to happen before computers.
I wonder how many animators, compositors, riggers, and so forth would actually even be in this business if the computer revolution did not happen? Very few would be my guess. Without the drawing skills for cell animation, or the patience for stop-motion, few could enter the field. Or even want to. The only equivalent for riggers would be stop-motion armatures, which is a machine shop job. Compositors had to use optical printers. Or film editors physically cutting film and sound tracks. ALL of these jobs were much more difficult in the past. Not to say that the jobs are by any means easy now, but the old school methods were much harder! But of course all this is moot as most of the old methods are gone. And I'm glad because there is less pain and higher quality.
"Face it - computers are the great equalizer. They can overcome poor draftsmanship and acting skills to a staggering extent. "
Apples to oranges with drawing. But irrelevent when it comes to acting. There's plenty of bad acting in hand drawn animation (Jafar, Roger Rabbit, everything in every don bluth cartoon, that old voodoo woman in Princess and the frog). No one goes to mass market movies to see 2D animation---they just don't care if it's 2D cg, puppet, or live action. The just want a great movie experience. If any animator prefers to animate hand drawn--more power to them. But if they're more interested in hand drawn animation than strong character and storytelling--they're very much out of touch with reality.
You want a great hand drawn feature? Write a great screenplay (yes, every animated feature since Snow White has had a screenplay of some sort other--except for don bluth movies--which explains a lot), raise the funding, and produce it yourself. I'll be first in line.
I completely agree with the fact that story is the heart of the matter. Whether it be CGI, 2D, Stop Animation, or Live Action the greatest films would be nothing if the story didn't pull us in and entertain us.
To quote Robert McKee,
"When Storytelling goes bad the result is decadence. A culture cannot evolve with honest, powerful storytelling. We need true satires and tragedies, dramas and comedies to shine a light on human psyche and society."
Storytelling is as old as time itself. We just need to remind ourselves how to do it right in time such as these. It also might be a good opportunity to turn to other countries and cultures that still thrive on 2D animation, such as Japan, to remind ourselves that it isn't over yet.
Acting skills and software proficiency is the magic combo.
As an animator working in CG, I don't think this is correct. If it were, then the more technically proficient one became, the better the animation. And yet this is not the case. Many of the best CG animators are the least software proficient people on the crew.
In the old days, there were animators who drew well, who were good at many traditional arts, but who were mediocre animators. And there were crappy draftsmen who were fantastic animators. Being a great animator has always been a separate skill from being an excellent artist. It's the same for computer/software proficiency.
there are quite a few mediocre animators who can "hide" their lack of acting by tweaking and editing away under a supervisor's direction, something that would never be able to happen before computers.
There's truth in the first part of the above sentence, but the second part isn't true at all. A good supervisor could hide the mediocrity of a lesser animator's work within a hand-drawn film, just as happens today in CG. Take a hard look at many of the traditionally animated films we revere today, and it's pretty obvious. If anything, mediocre animation was given more credit in the past simply because they were moving drawings.
ALL of these jobs were much more difficult in the past.
There were also a lot of jobs in the past that were much easier. The truth is, many of the jobs were different. If they were all easier now, and took fewer skills, then every last person doing hand-drawn films who was the least bit computer savvy would be a star today. As we all know, many people who were doing just fine in hand-drawn animation weren't able to transition over, despite great efforts.
And, having done both, I don't think working in CG is any less painful to do well.
Another poster wrote:
I completely agree with the fact that story is the heart of the matter.
and as evidence uses:
To quote Robert McKee,
"When Storytelling goes bad the result is decadence.
Of course, story and storytelling are fundamentally different concepts. 'Story' doesn't necessarily have much to do with animation, and it also doesn't have much to do with how well the audience responds to a film. Storytelling is another matter entirely, however, as McKee points out.
When people say they loved a film's story, they mean they loved the execution of the film's story. A lot of people can't grasp the distinction there, and so mistakenly keep babbling on about 'story' as if it's some magical answer.
Pencil animation started sucking when the Blackwing went out of production - but now they're back! So let's get a few cases and draw ourselves a movie to put these CG Studs to shame!!!!
Yeah, good luck with that...
it sounds like you are blaming the failure of non-Disney feature films in the 90's on pencils. Maybe they failed because of bad planning. These studios rushed to get on the feature bandwagon skipping the necessary development time needed to develop superior films that the public would be interested in seeing. When Disney started doing that, their films started failing, too. Coincidentally enough, they also blamed the pencils.
Well, Home on the Range was in development for six years before it was released. So by the standards listed above, it should have been a masterpiece, yes?
It isn't lack of time that makes a bad feature; it's lack of inspired talent. (Brad Bird had little time on Ratatouille. Sanders and DeBlois had eighteen months to execute How to Train Your Dragon.)
My opinion re why Disney hand-drawn features fell into a slump at the end of the nineties? The multiple layers of Disney Feature administrators had way too much say in the making of the films. I was around listening to the talent complain about it. Happily, I didn't have to live through the day-to-day problems.
A lot of people can't grasp the distinction there, and so mistakenly keep babbling on about 'story' as if it's some magical answer.
I had only meant that story is one of the key points to consider. There is no formula when creating an animated feature film. You can't predict what the audience will want nor think maybe it should be done this or that way for the best success.
I might just be a student with no real experience but my view on this is we aren't taught the fundamental elements of the classical form of story. It's as if we only look at the external surface of the film not the internal.
I only wish to understand the root of this negative tension in the animation industry so we can get pass it.
Hi Amber,
If by negative tension you mean the way there is carping between the hand-drawn and CG factions, just realize that most people in animation have moved beyond this pettiness, and those who haven't are often at the periphery of the industry. Most of us who are actually doing this for a living know how hard it is, and how much talent and artistry it requires, and that it's not that much different than it was 50 years ago.
If you're a student who is not being taught the fundamental elements of story, then you might be at the wrong school. The good thing is, there are a lot of excellent books and blogs on the subject, and you can teach yourself.
A good story is important, but no one can ever be sure what story good or mediochre will catch an audiences attention. In fact some films with weak stories have done much better than they reserve if you judge only on story.
I think what Steve was suggesting is something we all need to be somewhat aware of (not that we have any real choice in the matter)is that CG films seem to be much more widely accepted by the general public in a way that 2D very rarely was. All you need to do to recognize this is to look at the fact that many CG films and studios are making damn good money when none, but Disney, could make money before CG existed.
I don't think this requires a discussion about how hard or dificult it is to animate in CG or pencil. The fact remains the audiences seem to like CG A LOT!
All you have to do is try to imagine some of these CG films in 2D and try to imagine a world where they all would've been the big hits that they are now. I'd be willing to bet that most of them not only would've not made the big bucks that they did, but probably would have bombed.
You don't even have to look any further then Finding Nemo. Can you imagine that filom in 2D being a big hit?
And whattayaknow? Every one of the big corporations, from Warners to Paramount to Ted Turner, performed multi-million dollar face-plants, cranking out flop after feature-length flop. And one by one, they exited the animation business.
Uh, yeah...And then Jeffrey produced two of his own face-plants that, in a row, were mistakenly credited as "killing off" the Number Two pencil. ;)
(Which leads us to: )
You don't even have to look any further then Finding Nemo. Can you imagine that film in 2D being a big hit?
Actually, it was the industry panicking over not knowing why that one was a hit that "killed off" the #2--Reporters were so singleminded to find their own scapegoat to explain why the Big Orange Fish was eating even the live-action competition, they took half a quote from "Jeffrey" and turned it into a sweeping industry pronouncement that every studio executive believed.
Jeff's been trying to clear his name in interviews ever since (he was misquoted, honest!), but simultaneously beating Shrek into the ground hasn't exactly helped his image.
And then Jeffrey produced two of his own face-plants that, in a row, were mistakenly credited as "killing off" the Number Two pencil. ;)
Not quite. Prince of Egypt grossed $218.6 million -- triple it's production budget.
Yes, that was the "good" 2D Dreamworks everyone remembers.
Now, as to why Spirit:Stallion and Sinbad tanked twice in a row--in the same year as a dozen corporate cable upgrades also went over the cliff (what happened?--Don't audiences like Nickedlodeon and Powerpuff Girls?), that had the industry a little more concerned. And even MORE determined to explain the "mystery" of Nemo.
Katzenberg's alibi for Sinbad was that he thought the mix of 2-D characters and CGI effects "confused" the audience, and that if he had a chance of one, he thought the audience "might have responded better" to an all-CGI.
Reporters had the quote they'd been waiting for somebody to say, and...well, you know what happened after that.
If you're trying to make the case that Katzenberg's statements, or the media reporting, had any contribution to the global shift from hand-drawn to CG, then I've got a nice shiny bridge to sell you.
The shift happened because the public showed itself very, very willing to embrace CG animation, regardless of what studio it came from. While it didn't help that the hand-drawn films at the time were often (but not always) pretty lame, CG films from studios no one ever heard of were proving themselves hugely popular. That never, ever happened in hand-drawn animation.
Some executives may have made some stupid statements, and the press eagerly garbled the story, but anyone willing to look at the cold hard facts of box-office grosses will see a pattern that no animation producer could ignore.
Have to remember your history:
Nowadays, everyone takes it for a fact that everyone goes to see TS3 if there's nothing else left in theaters, and then piles it with Oscar nominations--But Pixar in '03 didn't have the "cult" it has today, and executives of every studio were beating their heads against walls as to why not only everyone was going to see Nemo, but why every other animated movie in '02-'03 was dropping like flies.
You would think that no sane child in the real world would WANT to sit for a whole movie of "Teacher's Pet" or "Hey, Arnold"--But since the Rugrats movies told execs that audiences always came out for corporate cable upgrades, the fact that these two could both open in fifth place, and Warner's full-hype Powerpuff movie even lower, was a biblical Apocalypse.
Media analysts--who never went to see "kiddy" movies and thought they all came from the same studio--wanted a headline explanation and they wanted it fast. And what did they come up with?...The exact same one they later used to explain why Tangled was a hit and Frog wasn't.
It's the Area 51 of the animation industry: Everyone "knows it", they just keep wanting to find some PROOF! (Even if they have to make it up themselves.)
Oh, I know the history, since I was busy working in the industry for the last 17 years. But I have to say, in all your verbiage, I don't have a clue any more what point you're trying to make.
But I have to say, in all your verbiage, I don't have a clue any more what point you're trying to make.
Anon 2:14, don't even try to debate with this guy, he's crazy. I've seen him post elsewhere, and his post are almost always incoherent.
Point is:
They said it before.
They said it again.
They'll keep saying it. Because they want to believe it.
...BUT THAT DON'T MAKE IT TRUE.
(And everyone who thinks they're the first people in the industry to say it...You're not.
You're just falling sucker for the industry's longest and stubbornest would-be urban myth, nine years going on ten.)
Dude, I have no idea what this guy is saying.
Try summing it up in one sentence. A topic sentence, if you will.
Yeah, I see what you guys mean. I've fallen into a debate with someone with a thought disorder. It all makes perfect sense to him, and he's unaware that it's just gibberish to the rest of us. My bad for engaging. I've learned my lesson.
Gah. Is that 'Snakebite' from Animation Nation posting up there? Only he could be so incoherent.
Can't be Snakebite...there were no Wigger comments. I assumed Charlie had stumbled onto the blog by accident except it didn't even make enough sense for him
Post a Comment