As the Title says: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/mar/07/disney-hand-drawn-animation And here's the CEO's response: http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayl...imation-but-what-does-he-really-mean-20130307 What do you guys think?
I'm not really sure what to think. I like the classic hand drawn movies and the lack of them recently has kinda been a huge bummer. I liked paperman though. An entire movie done that way wouldn't be so bad.
Personally, I like the 2D hand drawn movies. They're really good, and made up a big chunk of my childhood. I guess it really depends on the story. Some story's can be done well in CGI, but other's are better in 2D. For example, I can't imagine Lion King in CGI, and Toy Story can be done in 2D, but it's better in CGI. They're not totally giving up on 2D hand drawn animation, so I guess we can still expect a 2D movie to pop-up sometime in the future from time to time, just not too soon.
First off, I feel I have to clarify this for other people. The article clearly says that there no current plans for 2D animated films (full-length). All that means is that they have not come with something that would perfectly with that medium of storytelling. I am a fan of traditional 2D animation, but I am also a fan of good storytelling. That's why I also like the CG films as well; as long as I'm told a good story, I have no complaints one way or the other. Sometimes you just have to go with what feels right for the story. Think of it this way, do you think Tangled would have been just as good if it was traditionally drawn. It probably would have had lot of issues that CG was able to help with a lot. And even if they were to just turn away completely from 2D, I can understand why. It's a business decision, plain and simple. The truth is, Disney's core audience has always been the children of the current generation, and kids these days prefer CG movies to 2D ones. And before someone goes on an elitist rant on "these kids are stupid, '90s kids have all the good stuff, blah blah blah", this is not the kids fault at all. The only way things can get better is if there is progression. Just like how film slowly transitioned from silent, to sound, and to color, animation also has to evolve to explore new ground. Look at the box office draw that has coming in for the last two traditional animated films by Disney, The Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh. Both were acclaimed by critics, but it didn't bring in a lot of money during its theatrical run. Now look at the last two CG films, Tangled and Wreck-It-Ralph. Again, both critically acclaimed, but they were huge box office hits. That tells producers that people are just more interested in CG rather than 2D. Also, yes, I know Frankenweenie was also done by Disney, but don't forget that it was also marketed as a Tim Burton film. While he is a good film maker, and I did love Frankenweenie, the reason it do poorly in the box office was because Burton hasn't had the best resume lately (his last good film probably being Sweeney Todd). A movie can be as much of a classic as Casablanca or Psycho, but if it is directed by someone current audiences don't trust, it's not going to bring in a lot of money. In Hollywood, you're only as good as your last film, which in this case was Dark Shadows, which wasn't a terrible film, but it wasn't great either.
