Disney’s “The Princess And The Frog” opens in limited release in New York and Los Angeles on November 15th, and in theaters everywhere on December 11th (excuse me, I just had a Gary Oldman moment).
How much will TPATF gross domestically in the United States by midnight on Sunday, December 13th?
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:
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
Finally saw “Bolt” this evening here in Beijing… in stereo, and entirely in Mandarin - no dubbing or subtitles! 
While I look forward to viewing the film in English, I have to say that I found it to be extremely entertaining, even while only catching the few Chinese words that I currently know. There’s a lesson here for all those “talky” animation filmmakers (and you know who you are)! 
Congratulations to everyone at my old stomping grounds of Walt Disney Animation Studios on a fine piece of work! You have much to be proud of.
Unfortunately, Walt Disney Animation Studio’s “Bolt” opened this weekend to a relatively anemic $26.2M.
Keep your eye on “The Princess and the Frog”, and your ear on John Lasseter.
Cartoon Brew has posted the above comparison of a storyboard drawing from Walt Disney Animation Studios’ forthcoming feature “Bolt” with a rendered still frame from the movie, under the heading: “Storyboard vs. CG”. No matter that the drawing was probably created in CG as well. The blog entry proceeds to lambaste Disney’s CG production crew (including, I would presume, John Lasseter - who now oversees everything) for failing to adhere to the “character design”.
With all due respect, the good folks at CB seem to have confused storyboarding with character design. Storyboards are NOT character designs. If they were, you’d see the character “mutate” from sequence to sequence according to the varying styles and sensibilities of the board artists. And nevermind that the much-lauded storyboard panel reads like a freakish D-cup amputee. We can all be thankful that it’s not a character design.
A more informed title for this comparison would have been “Storyboard vs. Production”. For, contrary to the stance of the Cartoon Brew blog entry, the discrepancies between the images above are not the product of some inherent deficiency in the CG medium or in CG artists, but rather a consequence - for better and for worse - of the production process. You can present just as many examples of 2D films that have lost their charm along the way when the boards are compared to the cels. And any loss of appeal from storyboard to final output is ultimately the responsibility of the director, who approves everything - by affirmation or by deference.
Let’s review some of the reasons that final frames evolve from the storyboards, in both 2D and 3D animated features:
Now let’s review some of the reasons that final frames sometimes do indeed “de-volve” from the storyboards, in both 2D and 3D animated features:
Is “Bolt” the pinnacle of CG animation? From what I’ve seen of it - no. The unique style of Chris Sanders’ characters and revolutionary painterly backgrounds displayed in the “American Dog” boxcar test at SIGGRAPH 2006 are sorely missed. But the scene pictured above was pretty funny, as I recall from the trailer. Animation is meant to be enjoyed at speed, not picked apart frame-by-frame by fanboys in an agenda-driven navel gazing exercise. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
There will always be those who prefer the boards to the renders, who prefer 2D to 3D, etc. God bless America, we’re all entitled to our opinions. But are directors not permitted to let their films evolve organically and make aesthetic decisions that deviate from the boards, lest they incur online sniping? The very qualities that are often touted as “superior” in the drawings (and are quite enjoyable in measured amounts) can alienate audiences in large doses. I’m reminded of the prologue to “Kung Fu Panda”, which I loved (both the opening sequence and the movie). Many of my friends and colleagues remarked, “That was great! They should have done the entire movie that way.” Well, sure - if you want the audience to (try to) focus upon a “cool style” for 91 minutes as opposed to really identifying with the characters. Aggressive stylization tends to distance the audience from the performance: you find yourself “looking at” as opposed to “being with”. (Tim Burton’s films have this problem - beautiful as they are.) A little of that goes a long way, and I think Dreamworks called it just right in the transition. Of course, this is only my opinion. There’s more than one person out there who will use this very point to explain why 3D is “inferior” to 2D.
Which brings us to the tired ol’ CG bashing at the heart of the Cartoon Brew blog entry. CG artists and animators are used to it, of course. We’ve put up with the sneers for years, often while being asked to help train the same folks who regarded our medium with such disdain. I still recall the 2D animators (some good friends) who hung a computer in effigy from a tree behind Disney’s Southside building during a company party as “Home On The Range” was wrapping, and then bashed it to pieces with sticks while we 3D folks watched from a safe distance. I’m sure it sounds funny now, but it was less so at the time. You can imagine how awkward the punchbowl conversation became.
Over at The Animation Guild Blog, a thread on Disney Animation Studios quickly turned into a referendum on the (de)merits of the CG medium, with one anonymous poster (of the many “anonymi” at TAG) emphatically declaring both that “there isn’t even such a thing as an independent CGI animator”, and also that “There will never be a Glen Keane of CGI.” I must admit that I love absolutist statements that include the word “never”. In fact, I now have “There will never be a Glen Keane of CGI” taped to my monitor. Glen’s animation shines through as Glen’s despite the army of in-betweeners, cleanup artists, painters and scanners who work over his drawings. And there’s no reason why an animator cannot reach the same heights in CGI. Perhaps even Glen himself.
As anyone who has worked with one knows, the computer doesn’t provide you with anything that you don’t input yourself. The computer follows instructions, and its output is only as good as the quality of those instructions - provided by human beings. Great 2D/3D animators, such as Nik Ranieri and Dick Zondag, don’t just take “what the computer provides them” (as the TAG commenter maintained). They are active partners in the creation of their CG characters. They work directly with the modelers and TDs to define rigging capabilities, facial controls and the like which push the boundaries of the art and truly personalize it. When you look at the scene of Buck Cluck talking to Chicken Little in the car, you can “see” Nik the animator. It is every bit a personal performance, evocative of his other great work in 2D. Animator authorship IS possible in CGI. I’ve seen it, and I’ve worked to facilitate it.
Some people like to talk about the “limits” of CGI. Well, let’s explore these “limits” for a moment:
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I see COMPLETE FREEDOM. The only limitations you face are your own as an artist… or those of your schedule/budget.
So, I look forward to the day when the mediocre work produced by some is not used as justification to slag an entire medium out of fear and ignorance. I look forward to the day when we no longer speak of “2D animators” and “3D animators”, but simply of “animators”. I look forward to the day when the members of the animation community truly come together as one, instead of wasting valuable time, energy and goodwill lobbing stink bombs at each other.
And I look forward to the day when “The Glen Keane Of CG” indeed shows up, and no one even takes note of her as such - for the digital medium she works in is like water: transparent, and in fluid service of her performance and her story.
—
P.S. - The day after I posted this, I was informed that the artist who drew the storyboard image above is the very same individual who approved the model, look and fur groom of the CG character and also the same person who directed the animator assigned to the shot that the rendered frame is taken from. Chew on that, Cartoon Brew!
