The Animation Options Blog

Two related items of interest came to my attention recently.

The first was Don Bluth’s post to the Animation Nation message board, fretting over the increased isolationism that he sees as a consequence of digital technology (if I’m reading him correctly):

Over the years, I have heard from many animation students who are interested in creating their own picture or their own studio. I believe the computer has been a great boon to our industry but at the same time has pushed each of us into a type of isolation. The feature film can never be made by one or two people; it will always be a team effort of people who talk to each other, inspire each other and explore the romance of an animated story. Someone once calculated the sheer man-hours that were involved in creating Pinocchio and came up with 400 years. That is, if Walt had done it all by himself! What I have loved in my career as an animator is the joy that comes from teaming with other people to build an animated movie.

Those of you that have had this experience will know what I’m talking about. The short will always be economically feasible, and can done by an individual; the computers have made that possible. But, how do we overcome the tendency towards isolationism which is the safe ground, and find a more gregarious way of working together to progress our art while we’re waiting for that “special feature” to be funded?

The second was an Ars Technica article forwarded by my friend, Cal Arts professor Michael Scroggins, questioning the need for university computer labs when the percentage of incoming freshmen with tricked-out laptops is approaching 100%:

What’s the point of running a university computer lab when all the students bring laptops anyway? That’s a question that schools have been asking themselves as computer ownership rates among incoming freshmen routinely top 90 percent. Schools like the University of Virginia have concluded that the time has come to dismantle the community computer labs and put that money to more productive uses.

According to the school’s Information Technology & Communication department, 3,117 freshmen enrolled in 2007, and 3,113 of them owned their own computer. Nearly all of the machines were laptops, with 72 percent running Windows and 26 percent running Mac OS X (six hardy souls ran Linux).

Compared to a decade ago, the increase in student computing hardware is little short of amazing. In 1997, 74 percent of incoming freshmen owned computers, but only 16 percent of these machines were laptops. The Windows chokehold on operating systems looked complete, appearing on 93.4 percent of all machines and leaving only 6.6 percent for the Mac.

Given these numbers, the school began to suspect that its labs might not be necessary, even though usage remained high. When it surveyed the programs actually launched on lab computers in 2008, it found that 95 of the time students spent in the lab was spent running “free” software like Firefox, Internet Explorer, Adobe Acrobat Reader, or Microsoft Office (the school has a campus license for Office and students can install free $10 copies on their machines). Expensive but niche programs like SPSS—the bane of social science students everywhere—were used only 5 percent of the time.

With labs closing down, the university hopes to save some cash. School vice president James Hilton told The Chronicle of Higher Education that it cost about $300,000 to run the campus computer labs each year, but the amount that the school actually saves will depend on how much it costs to provide alternative access to things like community printers and niche software.

To make specialized software available to students, the school says it will “convene a community to jointly review potential software delivery solutions.” Its ideas so far all appear to revolve around accessing specialized tools over the network, possibly through “software streaming” or some form of remote connection to dedicated machines.

The change also doesn’t mean that the university gets to reclaim all that physical space from the labs. As the university’s explanatory document notes, “ITC understands that students need collaborative space where they can bring their laptops and mobile devices to conduct group work, especially as the curriculum becomes increasingly team- and project-based.”

As for supporting this hugely diverse range of hardware that students will schlep to campus, the mind boggles at the tech support nightmares that will soon plague the dreams of IT workers.

These two pieces point to the paradigm shift that we are seeing as mobile computing becomes increasingly pervasive in our society while encompassing tasks of growing complexity. Though the majority of folks still surf the web at Starbucks or polish their Excel spreadsheets at 30,000 feet, a growing number of professional artists, writers, musicians, animators and filmmakers can be found “out-and-about” creating work. And this is a very good thing. Far from imposing solitary confinement, professional-grade computers have approached a threshold of portability (and even “wear-ability”) that enable digital artists to bring the studio into the field.

I recall my days as a painting major at the Cleveland Institute of Art, working in what is now referred to as “traditional media” (oils). At one point, I developed a case of artist’s block. I had figuratively painted myself into a corner with my current line of aesthetic inquiry, and didn’t know how to get out of it or what to do next. My mentor, Julian Stanczak, suggested that I take the day off and wander around town on foot without anything in particular in mind. “Don’t think, just look,” was his advice. Of course, I’m sure you can guess the result: I returned to the studio with fresh ideas and renewed vigor, based upon my experience of getting out into the world. Here was a case of an artist suffering from “solitary confinement” with brush and canvas - no digital “Big Brother” required. And frankly, we see can see this problem in animation studios around the world, be they traditional or digital. It is all too common to find professional animation artists who are not only isolated from the world (save for the occasional field trip to the zoo or studio visit from Tai the elephant), but isolated from each other. In fact, by the very nature of their craft, digital artists are among the most collaborative around - moreso than many of their “traditional” brethren who often work behind closed doors.

Which brings me back to Don Bluth’s post. In the first place, Mr. Bluth seems to be suffering from the very isolationism that he bemoans: animated feature films already have been created by one or two people. The fact that computing power enables increasingly smaller teams of artists and animators (including solo artists) to create feature-length films is a good thing. Bloated crews of 300+ (and the bloated budgets required to suckle them) are on their way out. Teamwork remains, but within a more feasible scope for the independent creator. And mobile computing makes this collaboration possible anywhere.

The Ars Technica article suggests a re-definition of what a “lab” will mean from now on: a convergence of ideas rather than an offering of hardware. Will students still meet in school labs? Of course they will. But they’ll also meet in coffee houses and friend’s apartments. They’ll take their laptops out into the field to record sounds, shoot video, write, draw and animate. They’ll engage the world instead of hiding from it. And this will only increase the quality of their discourse and of their art, as the silicon miracles which continue to transform our lives sublimate themselves further and further to the creative process.

There has never been a better time to be an artist, there has never been a better time to form a creative team, and there has never been a better time for independent animated features.

Things can’t be too cheerful right now at Disney Animation Studios. It’s bad enough that the artists have had to endure ongoing layoffs, increased hours and pay cuts. But now, while waiting for the other shoe to drop after the unfortunate box office performance of “Bolt”, they’ve had that shoe thrown at them by “Disney Legend” Floyd Norman, the Andy Rooney of animation, who writes the following for mouse-dropping-sniffer Jim Hill:

What can Walt Disney Animation Studios do to save itself? Ditch digital

I’m going to apologize in advance for today’s column because I’m sure that it’s going to make a lot of people angry. I have a plan that some might call radical. But it’s a plan that I’m afraid we need. Tough times demand tough decisions, and here’s one to consider: Get rid of digital animation at Walt Disney Animation Studios.

Yep. I said it. I think that WDAS should stop producing CG animated features and should instead concentrate on reviving hand-drawn animation.

Now, lest you think this is some kind of impassioned plea about the “purity” of hand-drawn animation — think again. This is not some geeky, fan boy rant about which is the better cartoon medium. Far from it. This is pure business stuff. Corporate strategy, some might call it. Tough things that you gotta do when running a business during tough times.

Animation has been going through a fair amount of turmoil over the past few years. Some “business geniuses” had the bright idea that animation was going through a paradigm shift. This was all because a new tool had been invented. A tool that gave us the ability to move objects in a computer. According to these suits, this brilliant new tool was what would move animation moving to the next level. Hand-drawn animation had reached its limit, they said. Digital animation was the new paradigm. Hand-drawn was dead, and rightly so.

Hold on a second. If hand-drawn animation is outmoded and passé, then how do you explain Disney’s ability to continue to sell “Pinocchio,” “Sleeping Beauty,” and “Peter Pan” in every new technology that comes along? How many times has Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment repackaged & resold the Company’s old hand-drawn features on DVD with new added features or new digital transfers?

Kids watch these movies over & over again not because of the film-making technology involved, but because they’re good. The problem here isn’t with the mode — it’s with the message. The reason that any one film fails at the box office isn’t because of the technology. It’s all about whether the stories are any good; whether the characters resonate with an audience. We have to care whether the hero wins and the villain loses. Unbelievably, it’s as simple as that.

So you see, this is not really a discussion of the merits of one film production method over another. Each has its points and that’s perfectly fine. I embrace both, of course, with the nod going to hand-drawn. But then again, that’s just me. However, we’re not here to discuss art. We’re here to talk business.

Serious question now: Does The Walt Disney Company really need a digital animation studio? You bet your megabytes they do. Luckily, they own the finest digital animation studio in the world. A company that consistently turns out some of the greatest animated features ever produced, and will — in all likelihood — continue to do so. Now comes the next tough business question: Are two such studios really a legitimate need?

The trouble is, Walt Disney Animation Studios is already getting lost in the crowd. That’s the problem with digital animation. There’s nothing that truly distinguishes one film from another. At one time, WDAS was unique. It was the premiere animation studio in the world. It was what everybody who aspired to be an animator wanted to work. Walt Disney, along with his incredible staff, set the standard and raised the bar so high, competitors could only dream of hopefully coming close. Once the leader in a business it completely dominated, Walt Disney Animation Studios is now reduced to playing catch up.

Walt never followed the competition. He was always too busy leading

In this ever-growing field of animated films from numerous competitors both foreign and domestic, The Walt Disney Company still has a hole card. A card that’s evident even now as work continues on WDAS’ first hand-drawn animated feature in years. A movie that could restore Walt Disney Animation Studios’ identity and remind audiences around the world that the Company they remember from their childhood is still very much alive. That it is already beginning to awaken from a deep digital slumber like some beautiful princess in a fairy tale.

Once again, this is not an artistic discussion. This is not a debate over which medium is more viable, or what audiences prefer. This is a business decision that will be made one day, and that day is quickly approaching.

From time to time, I’ve taken heat from angry CG guys for being too critical of their recent movie efforts. Most seem to think I was beating up on them because I had a vested interest in hand-drawn animated features. In truth, I was never taking issue with the medium — rather the poor films that were being made. I have little doubt that — with today’s column — I’ll once again be accused of “computer bashing.” As nervous technicians fear future downsizing and the loss of their jobs.

That said, I still think that it’s time that Walt Disney Animation Studios grew up. It’s time that WDAS realized that it’s not the cool young kid on the block anymore. Get over it! So you’re not young, hip, or cool. Big deal. You’re still the great grand-daddy of feature animation. And that’s a very good thing to be. In fact, that may wind up being the very thing that saves Walt Disney Animation Studios.

So what to do? I think that WDAS should capitalize on its own historic legacy, remind would-be moviegoers of those not-so-distant days when hand-drawn animation was still considered magical. When the animators who worked at Disney were looked upon as artists. And it took decades — not months — to master this craft.

Finally, I have a question for all you executives and managers who keep looking at the bottom line. Which do you think is more expensive? Software and workstations or pencils and paper? Servers and digital infrastructure or wooden desks? Yeah, I know. There’s always digital post, but you get the idea.

Hand-drawn traditional animation is Disney’s past. But it can also be Disney’s future. What Walt Disney Animation Studios really needs to do is lead a modern renaissance of hand-drawn animation.

And when they do that … Guess what? The magic — because it is magic — will return.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I worked at Walt Disney Feature Animation (back when it was known as such) for 12 years, and that I am one of the “angry CG guys” that Mr. Norman has “taken heat” from in the past. Far be it from me to argue with a legend, but my Achilles heel is that I just can’t abide flawed reasoning - especially when it is presented in the guise of an objective, authoritative view that is in reality motivated by ignorance and prejudice.

Does Disney have its problems? Yes. Did the poor box office performance of “Bolt” help the case of the digital artists? No. Does it sting to have paid $7.4 billion dollars for a “quick fix” that is nowhere in sight? Unquestionably. Are the days of digital production at Disney Animation Studios numbered? Probably.

But shuttering digital on Riverside won’t “save Disney”, as Mr. Norman (and everyone else) will realize once it comes to pass. What will save Disney is a return to the fine storytelling tradition forged by Walt, fumbled by Eisner and intercepted by Lasseter. And the restoration of that tradition takes time, as someone who lionizes decades-long animation apprenticeships should know.

For someone who observes (correctly) that…

The reason that any one film fails at the box office isn’t because of the technology. It’s all about whether the stories are any good; whether the characters resonate with an audience. We have to care whether the hero wins and the villain loses. Unbelievably, it’s as simple as that.

…Mr. Norman spends an awful lot of time explaining how the expulsion of a particular media will solve Disney’s problems. Huh? I’m confused. If it’s the “message” and not the “mode”, then why are we focusing on the mode? Is it because the author of the article is a story guy, and that the real problem cuts too close to home? Or is it because of thinly-veiled prejudices, revealed through references to digital artists as “nervous technicians” (akin to someone claiming to have nothing against minorities because they respect “those people”)? Will shuttering digital help pull “Rapunzel” out of its seven-year story spiral? Doubt it.

Time will tell how audiences respond to Disney’s new 2-D effort, “The Princess and the Frog”. I hope it does well, and I hope the powers-that-be don’t make another snap decision on a par with the short-lived “traditional is dead” pronouncement. Mr. Norman likes to dress up his opinions in terms of a hard-nosed business stance, so let’s examine a few of these:

1. Does The Walt Disney Company need two digital studios? No. And yes. Does your family need two cars? No. And yes. “Need” is a very subjective word. If Disney finds that it makes business sense to keep making digital films in Burbank and Emeryville, then they indeed “need” two digital studios. The poor B.O. of “Meet the Robinsons” and “Bolt” don’t bode well on this front, but this will play out on a spreadsheet, without calling for CG heads on animation disks. Undermining Mr. Norman’s credibility on this front is how he conveniently flips from praising one digital studio as turning out “some of the greatest animated features ever produced”, and two sentences later goes on to pronounce: “That’s the problem with digital animation. There’s nothing that truly distinguishes one film from another”. Once again… huh???
2. The article uses the DVD home video sales of Disney classics such as “Pinocchio”, “Sleeping Beauty” and “Peter Pan” to justify the call for 2D over 3D, and to forecast the future success of 2D Disney theatrical releases. This remains to be seen. With all due respect to the classics (which I enjoy in my own personal collection of 2D, 3D and stop-motion animated films), “the kids” aren’t buying them. The parents are buying them… along with anything else they can plop a screaming child in front of for 90 minutes of peace and quiet. Will this pragmatic domestic survival tactic translate into box office gold? A princess and a frog are going to find out.
3. Mr. Norman maintains that traditionally-animated films are somehow cheaper than CG-animated films because servers and workstations cost more than pencils and paper - the same sort of simplistic thinking that caused animation executives to assume that CG-animated films would automatically be cheaper than traditionally-animated films. The reality is that 3D films can leverage on efficiencies far greater than their 2D counterparts, when planned properly. They can also burn through a remarkable amount of money when planned poorly. Or when the story department can’t get their act together.

Hand-drawn animation can truly be part of Disney’s future, but not as some “old-timey” relic of days gone by. As anyone who actually saw “Bolt” can attest, Disney Animation Studios has quite a bit to offer the digital world - a benefit not only to the folks up at Emeryville but also to the colleagues with pencils behind their ears down the hall in Burbank. Walt was not one to shy away from new technology, and never one to give up and concede defeat. Something every Disney Legend should know.

My best wishes for future success to ALL the fine artists at Walt Disney Animation Studios!

KG