Disney Shuts Down 2D Animation Studio

sofakingl writes "As mentioned in this Slashdot article, Disney has been planning to shut down their 2D animation studios. Just recently, Disney shut down their Florida studio, with some animators transferred to Disney's Burbank studio, and others being left out of a job. This has brought criticism from Roy Disney, the nephew of Walt Disney. And to top it off, Disney may be facing new competition from Legacy Animation, a new animation studio that was formed by ex-Disney animators."

It's an insane decision.

Disney thinks that it's computer animation that has led to the success of Finding Nemo, Shrek etc.

It's good story, humour and characters that have led to success. Their hand animated flicks bombed because they were bad, not because they were 2D.

Re:It's an insane decision.

Mabey some of those animators, now that they have some time on their hands, will decide to group together to work on some non-family animation here in the US. Limiting the scope of animation to family friendly themes is such a waste of the artform, in my opinion.

Re:It's an insane decision.

After seeing the art and animation from such films as "Tarzan" "Hercules" and "The Emperor's New Groove", I put it to you that many of the Disney animators deserved to be laid off. Feel free to hold whatever opinion you like about the writing and voice acting, but the bottom line is that those movies looked like ass.

Animated feature-length movies are not made for adult audiences very often in the US because the truth is, they just don't sell very well. You could make the case that movies like "Final Fantasy" and "Titan AE" bombed because they were painfully dull and poorly written, but the fact remains that there has yet to be a successful American full-length animated feature which wasn't considered a "family" movie in the US. Ever. The closest you could possibly get is "Heavy Metal", which enjoys a cult following (mostly among 12-year old kids and stoners, both of whom like looking at the cartoon boobies.)

Re:It's an insane decision.

yet to be a successful American full-length animated feature which wasn't considered a "family" movie in the US.

Beavis and Butthead do America - think it mae around $80 million which isn't too shabby - and definitely not one for the liitle kiddies!

South Park Movie - also did around the $75 million mark.

Don't sound too shabby to me!

Re:It's an insane decision.

Call me what you want, but actually I thought Tarzan" "Hercules" and "The Emperor's New Groove" were actually quite good.

At least they were original.

The problem is more there latest offerings. You know the ones. The one with 2 at the end. I was forced to sit through Cinderella 2 with my daughter recently and it was the most shocking piece of crud ever. It would not be so bad if it was only for video, but no Jungle book 2 and tigger thr movie made it to the big screen.

They seem to run out of people with original ideas willing to take risks.

3D is not the answer. Sack the execs and the accountants and hire some decent script writes and concentrate on making one good movie every two years instead of 4 bad ones in a year

Re:It's an insane decision.

They seem to run out of people with original ideas willing to take risks.

The shareholders don't want them taking risks with their money. They want Cinderella 3: Rise of the Sisters, they want tie-ins with McDonalds, they want safe, easy, money.

Two years' worth of criticall acclaimed, but poorly viewed films will see the stock price slide and credit rating disappear. The people who own the company have no interest in it other than as a cash cow. You can't be dangerous and edgy as a public company.

Curse of the sequels

The shareholders don't want them taking risks with their money. They want Cinderella 3: Rise of the Sisters, they want tie-ins with McDonalds, they want safe, easy, money.

This is one of the main reasons why Roy E. Disney (Chairman of Disney Animation Department and member of the Disney board of directors, and Walt's last remaining relative in the Disney empire) resigned in a big melt down last November.

In his resignation letter (available here [savedisney.com]) Roy E. Disney blasted Michael Eisner with, "This company under your leadership has failed in many ways:" then of the many things he slams, specifically bombasts Eisner for "The perception by all of our stateholders -- consumers, investors, employees, distributors, and suppliers -- that the company is rapacious, soulless, and always looking for the 'quick buck' rather than long-term value which is leading to a loss of the public trust." and "Your failure to establish and build constructive relationships with creative partners, especially Pixar, Miramax, and the cable companies distributing our products."

All in all, it's a great letter, rather well written, and my brief highlights don't do it justice. He tells the world that Michael Eisner is a no-good egomaniac who's systematically destroying the legacy that Walt built by not taking risks, going for the quick buck, and releasing sequels rather than using the briliant writing talent already available inside the animation complex.

Now here's how the animators feel. There was a letter of support written recently by Disney's top animators Tim Hauser (writer of the OSCAR nominated short Runaway Brain), Steve Moore (director, OSCAR nominated short Redux Riding Hood, Emmy nominated special Olive, the Other Reindeer), and Dave Pruiksma (supervising animator, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, Hunchback of Notre Dame, The Lion King, etc.) and it was signed by over 4200 members of the animation community:

"The unique traditions of visual storytelling, humor and personality animation on which the Walt Disney Studio had thrived, gave way to politically correct sloganeering, stale one-liners and film seminar formulas to which audiences have refused to respond.

Mr. Eisner's rejection of Walt Disney's heritage has been a colossal failure. Yet this is a man who has been paid over $700 million in compensation since 1996, while the Feature Animation department has been decimated by pink slips.

Now, skilled craftsmen go unemployed while the executive ranks swell. A unique American art form, the Disney cartoon feature, hangs precariously in the balance - - reduced to the production of cheap direct-to-video franchise extensions made by committee.

Without Roy, who will protect the 70-year Disney legacy from becoming no more than a hollow brand?"

The whole scandal is great reading. I recommend checking out savedisney.com (Roy E. Disney's website.) Then while you're feeling indignant that the little spark that Disney still had was purposefully extinguished, go sign the petition [petitiononline.com] then if you're still feeling indignant, purchase some "Roy was right." messenger bags [cafepress.com] and wear them to Disneyland or Disneyworld the next time you go as a show of support, cause the appropriate behavior to news like this -- a boycott -- just isn't going to happen. So buy the bags, and be obnoxious at the parks.

Anyway, Roy's email address [mailto] is on the web. You can email him here.

Re:It's an insane decision.

Disney is not even better in 3D animation. Basically, the 3D cartoons were produced by Disney. At least Toy Story and Finding Nemo have been done by Pixar Studios.

What this seems to mean is that Disney is turning into a production studio, instead of a genuine creator of cartoons. As said by the Pixar site, in February 1997, Pixar entered into the Co-Production Agreement (which superseded the Feature Film Agreement) with Disney pursuant to which we, on an exclusive basis, agreed to produce five original computer-animated feature-length theatrical motion pictures for distribution by Disney. One might guess that Disney will try to keep its dominant position by signing such agreements with the creative animation studios now that it's been recurrently proved (since the Lion King, mostly) that Disney 2D creations suck... Too bad I'll have to keep my old device to show Bambi to my children... :)

jdif

HOLY CRAP!

Does this mean no more Hakuna Matata!?!

Irony

If you can DREAM it, you can DO it.

-- Walt Disney

This is on the front page of Legacy. How ironic. Or insulting, depending how you look at it.

Save Disney site.

Save Disney [savedisney.com] Save Disney site for those who cares.

Re:Save Disney site.

Frankly, I don't. Disney is making a big mistake, and this will most likely, while not bringing about an end to Disney, open up the market for many other animation studios such as the aforementioned Legacy Studios.
Indeed, Pixar succeeded because they knew how to make a good story, and good characters, and to use the medium. While I don't think that 3-D CG is inherently better (or worse), I do think that variety is important, and that using the appropiate medium for the appropiate story is crucial.
Toy Story, for instance, was wonderful, not just because of the lovable characters, but because the quirks of CG lend themselves to doing well at rendering plastic-y models. FF:TSW was wonderful because the CG animation let them paint a world that was at once real and surreal, and to pull off effects that would be damn near impossible otherwise (the Phantoms for instance...).

In short, it seems to me that Disney is shooting themselves in the foot by reducing the available avenues for them to express themselves through, and that this will open up for more creative studios to finally grab the market.

"Disney" != The Walt Disney Company

If Walt Disney were alive today, he likely wouldn't recognize the company that has his name. Roy Disney certainly doesn't think so...

The Disney of today is not a pure family-friendly company by any means. The "Disney brand name" is reserved for G-rated projects only, but companies such as Touchstone Entertainment and Miramax Pictures exist under the Disney company's ownership to publish PG to R-rated fare. Everything that goes out over The Disney Channel is family friendly, but you can't say the same about ABC.

And from that view of the world, it's easy to see why 2D animation is out the door. It's not a money-maker today.

The original Disney works are living on borrowed time right now. Mickey Mouse quietly celebrated his 75th birthday this year. Why didn't the Disney theme parks hold a big celebration for that event like they do for every other excuse to hold a big celebration? Because 75 years old used to be the retirement age for copyrights, until the Sonny Bono Copyright Extention Act made it 95 years. The company knows that they're not going to be able to get extentions forever, so they've already started to diversify while they still can...

Re:"Disney" != The Walt Disney Company

Twenty more years, and they'll let him out of the water tower!

Nah, that's the Warner Brothers, Yakko and Wakko, and of course the Warner Sister, Dot. They escaped the water tower in the mid-90s.

Re:"Disney" != The Walt Disney Company

>Because 75 years old used to be the retirement age for copyrights, until the Sonny Bono Copyright Extention Act made it 95 years. The company knows that they're not going to be able to get extentions forever, so they've already started to diversify while they still can...

Well, after seeing the copyright period extended time after time as I have, I have no faith that it won't continue to be extended, indefinitely. The copyright holders have paid politicians enormous sums to keep their intellectual fiefdoms. And recent court rulings indicate that there are no current legal limitations to prevent future extensions. If additional legislation isn't put in place to limit further extensions I would posit that they may well continue ad infinitum.

adios 2D

It's kind of sad. I love watching The disney version of the Jungle Book because the backgrounds are so detailed and lush. There is a certain warmth to 2d animation, at least I think there. Who knows though, maybe I'm just being a technophobic jackass. I say the samething about records as opposed to digital media. There is a certain je ne sais quoi to it, know what I mean?

Maybe it's for the good

When I heard about this first time I thought that Disney has probably the best 2D animators working for them, wich is a pitty, since their stories suck so much. But if all thouse people are fired and start working on their own, maybe they choose to animate good stories and we can see something more than boring musicals with no plot. The ones to lose more about that can be Pixar if they are forced to animate that crap.

That makes sense.

With 3D displays coming why should they produce 2D animation which doesn't use the full oppotunities of modern technology ?

To make it even funnier.....

They close down their 2D studios, and it looks like they won't be renewing their deal with Pixar. They're closing the studios down because "it isn't profitable", as I recall.

And what's Pixar doing? Possibly opening a 2D animation studio [aintitcool.com].

I think it's the Disney studios that aren't profitable anymore, since most of the good animated movies out of Disney in the past 5 years or so were from Pixar...

Same issues the game industry had

It amazes me that animation is repeating the same mistakes computer games did. I remember when the big buzz word in games was 3D, and somehow this magicially made a better game. With the advancement of 3D, we saw the loss of such awesome games like old Lucasarts adventure games. They switched to 3D, and have never felt the same since. And the move to 3D killed Warcraft Adventures, since they saw a preview of Grim Fandango and decided a 2D animated adventure game wouldn't make it.

And even outside the adventure genre, the bad effects of 3D can be seen. Who here actually liked Mario 64 over say Super Mario World? Sonic Adventure is another good example. It went from avazing speed along a 2D course, to a game that had very little speed areas. Why? Well, 3D speed areas take a lot longer to make, and for little return since the character will be zooming through there at insane speeds.

3D has done wonders for computer games as well, but some of the most interesting games today are still very 2D, or trying to immitate it anyhow. Notice the big trend to do cell shading for example. Also look at Viewtiful Joe, one of the most creative games out recently, and it's a 2D game (well, 3D and shaded, but 2D playing field).

Hand drawn 2D animation still has a huge place out there. I remember the animated films for their content and look, and unfortunatly you loose a bit of that personal touch you feel from 2D films. And not only does this impact movies, but also their TV shows it seems. Gargoyles was an awesome show, and was a shame to see it stopped.

Re:Same issues the game industry had

How exactly is this the same "mistake" as the computer game industry? Disney is cutting it's traditional animation division not for any technical reason, nor as some artistic statement on whether 2D animation is better than 3D annimation.

The traditional animation division of Disney has been a financial failure for Disney for several years now. "Road to El Dorado" cost $95 million dollars and has recouped only $50 million dollars. "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" cost Disney over $100 million dollars and ended up with a total box office of $83.5 million dollars at box over the course of 20 weeks. Even adding rentals, which totalled less than $11 million dollars, "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" was entirely a financial failure. What else has the divison produced recently? Treasure Planet in 2002 for a friendly cost of $140 million dollars and has received $38 million at box office and around $4 million from rentals. Would you fund a division that has lost $150 million dollars over the past 3 years on features alone?

Incredible amounts of market research modified scripts have essentially killed North America's last traditional cell animation studio. Disney's cell animation scripts lack direction, coherence, and even an audience (they try to pander to all ages and end up appealing to none).

To reinterate, the fact that the division used traditional cell animation had nothing to do with why the division is being closed. That being said, cell animation in North America has essentially died for now -- Disney was the last major cell animation house on the continent, and yes, that is somewhat sad.

Re:Same issues the game industry had

The Road To El Dorado was done by Dreamworks.

Legacy Animation on Legacy Server

Apparently they believe in legacy hardware as well. That is one slow server.

3D isn't better than 2D

Stupid, noone cares if it's 2D or 3D, it's the story which is important, I've liked quite a few animations from both camps lately. With Toy story 3D was cool because it was new, that isn't the case any longer, and sure shrek looks nice, but I have no troubles whatsoever with Mulan either for example.

3D doesn't have to be better than 2D, just look at the game industry, the only good 3D game I can figure out is Quake and maybe WarCraft3 but that's not any 3D i count, it works like 2D. The rest of the games are blown away by old Amiga titles.

Blame Y2K

Top Ten Ways Y2K Affected Disney World

10. Accidental switch back to 19,000 Leagues Under the Sea.
9. Messed up computers report EuroDisney turning a profit.
8. Air traffic control glitch causes Dumbo to smack into a DC-10.
7. The "It's a Small World After All" creatures go on a rampage.
6. The Hall of Presidents keeps chanting "Kill Clinton, kill Clinton."
5. When you wish upon a star, nothing happens.
4. Unexpected power surge brings an angry Walt Disney back to life.
3. "Main Street Electrical Parade" becomes "Main Street Two Guys With Plastic Flashlights Parade."
2. Ticket machine accidentally dispenses day passes for less than $600.
1. Two words: catapulting teacups.

Correct me if I'm wrong

but this doesn't mean Disney's switching to polygons for everything, just that they're phasing out old techniques for doing animation. There will still be 2D animation, it'll just be done on a computer. I'll agree you lose some warmth when you go the all computer route (at least with current technology, see Saber Marionette J). On the other hand, with computers you can do animation that would normally be outside budget constraits (again, see Saber Marionette J).

Not that I'm not taking a cynical outlook to the whole thing. Once you get over the novelty of polygonal animation it just looks awful. Animators aren't really taking advantage the new tools (at least not in a way that's apparent to a non-animator). I want to see more intricate, detailed animation of a sort that wasn't possible before. Right now it seems like computers are being used mainly to cut costs and boost profits.

that's dumb...

They just don't know what to do with 2D... considering how much of cool art has gone 2D recently, just consider viewtiful joe on the nintendo gamecube and many other examples...

It's a shame

What a shame that disney is moveing away from 2d animation, no 3d animation can ever be compared to the life like strokes and personality there lies in such a piece of work.

Not saying that Shrek or Finding Nimo could have been done better using 2d animation, but can anyone picture donnald in 3d. Its just not the same.

Slashdot effect

Uh-oh! Looks the Slashdot effect has shut down another animation studio [legacyanimation.net]. =)

-6 troll :)

I got to talk to Don Bluth, the saviour of classical animation, (if it were not for him classical animation would have died a long time ago) at Comic-Con two years ago. He was one of the nicest persons I have ever met. He drew me Dirk the Daring from Dragon's Lair in about 5 seconds, perfect. He told me that Roy Disney came to his studios in Ireland (at the time) and essentially told him "Join us, or Die." So enough of the B.S. that Roy Disney is trying to save classical animation. He is just pist that they forced him to retire. The worst part about the termination of the Florida animation unit, is that they actually churned out two hits in their short lifespan. So it's b.s. that Disney needed to shut em' down to save money. Classical Animation is not dead, it just has had a few set backs in the past few years. It will return. I wish Disney would use Miramax and make an adult animated film.

2.5D

I tend to agree that the 2D-->Bomb, 3D-->Success thinking is grossly oversimplistic, if there is truth in it at all (probably a small amount).

Have you ever seen the Animatrix *cough*... okay, not a great example, but the way in which the superficially '2D' animation "Beyond" added convincing depth to the street scenes was *obviously* done by a computer with 3D capabilities. Ditto the way the backgrounds got thrown out of focus- but it still *looked* like a 2D animation.

The 2D vs 3D argument will become obselete soon, if it isn't already. Many 2D animations include 3D CGI now, without becoming 'computer-generated 3D animations'. Even ten years ago, Disney were using CGI in Aladdin.

so are they

Are they going into total 3D ala Pixar, or are they just moving all of their animation over to digital? I recall reading that they were going to be phasing out hand-drawn stuff and going over to pure digital animation, but in a lot of cases (ie the Simpsons) this isn't a bad thing. I had thought that is was Pixar who was pushing Disney to go all digital.

All things being said and done, the move over to digital animation shouldn't be a bad thing.

as they say in the business

Arep Arep Arep..... thats all folk's

of course,

Step 1) Close 2D Studios
2) ???
3) Profit!!

Rampage

Hopefullly, Stitch will go on a rampage at Disney headquarters.

3D-like 2D?

I suppose this news doesn't include all recent 2D of cartoon movies that looks like its originally made on a computer in 3D and later rasterized into 2D (with the 3D depth of field still intact).....

Wha?!

Next thing you know they'll announce their newest 3D project using this fantastic new technique called "Cell Shading"!

Money saving effort.

Well obviously this is geared at making more money and costing them less. But I really doubt that a 1D animation studio is going to do to well.
---
Red Line
Blue Line
Orange Line

Critics WOW That was great this is Oscar worth stuff

When they thaw out old Walt...

...he's gonna be pissed!

No complaints here.

This is a boon for traditional animators who now don't need to compete with Disney on that front. Bring back the competition. What happened to Don Bluth anyway..? The Secret of NIMH anybody?

People will miss the 2D?

There is a big difference in watching a fully 3D movie and a 2D movie.. the best way to go is to combine them. I hope for disney's sake that they won't forget this. If you want to see a 'perfect' example of 2D combined with 3D I suggest that you look up a trailer of the soon to come new Ghost in the Shell manga movie! Personally I hope disney rots away and that we get more kick ass anime things :)

Why do we care?

Who cares if they stop 2D animation? If there is a demand for it someone will produce it. If not Disney, the someone else. If it turns out 2D becomes a phenom, I'm sure Disney will jump back in to the cash pool.

=Shreak

News Flash

Walt Disney Co. plans to close all of its 3D animation studios by late March, 2006. The CEO intends to replace them with new 4D animation techniques developed by NASA scientists placing Disney back on top as the leader in animated film production.

Barf.

Walt Disney was a businessman... don't idolize him

"The mouse factory," as his studio was known in the forties, like the rest of Hollywood, was in the business of making money out of dreams. It is possible to acknowledge real affection for the enterprise and its products. But at the same time, we should recall details such as the ugly labor disputes that took place at Disney studios during the forties.

Hand-drawn animation was all but shut down once before, as I recall. In the fifties, Walt Disney shifted the emphasis to live-action movies (and mixtures, as in "Mary Poppins.") Animation wasn't abandoned altogether, but the stuff between 1955 ("Lady and the Tramp") and 1981 ("The Fox and the Hound") was cheaply done and not top-drawer. You didn't have those luscious Chris-van-Allsburg-quality backgrounds, the animation was jumpy and more like Saturday morning cartoons than the classic Disney animation oeuvre.

I believe the survival of animation at Disney depended in part on the new technology of xerography--pencil drawings were photocopied onto cels instead of having to be laboriously inked.

Walt Disney himself didn't have any special affection for animation. It happened to be the business gimmick that worked for him and got him on the road to success. When he was asked late in life what he was proudest of, he answered that it was what he had built--the buildings, the companies, the infrastructure, the businesses.

And, when it came to animation and movie production, he was always a bit of a gadget freak. Or technology enthusiast. He would be just as pleased with Pixar's technology now as he was with the multiplane camera that pushed the envelope in the, let me think, late thirties? For Pinocchio? Used in that amazing over-the-rooftops opening sequence.

Its not about 3D vs 2D

When I heard this news in the LA Times I thouhgt glossed over it. I don't think this is about 2D or 3D. The fact of the matter is that the good scripts are being made in 3D. The talent is going to shops like Pixar and the results are first and foremost excellent stories and characters. 3D animation costs more than 2D to produce so this is not about making it cost effective. Nemo would have grossed the same amount of money if it was traditionally animated. pete

Issues with the Florida Studio Shutdown

Fine, let Disney shut down the (practically brand-new) Florida animation facility. What other effects does this have?

We all know that the Florida studio was responsible for creating "Lilo and Stitch". As WDW moves forward with a retrofit of the screamingly-fun "Alien Encounter" ride to a more family-friendly "Meet Stitch" format, they ran into a small glitch.

With all the animators gone from the Florida studio, they ended up having to out-source the pre-show animation to some non-Disney company [jimhillmedia.com].

On the plus side, it gives Disney one more building to reuse for yet another cartoon-based stage show in the Studios theme park. Better get that created soon while they still have popular films that haven't been used yet. That's right, you can't have too many stage shows that all end before 5pm at a theme park open until 10pm to entertain the masses.

The reason Pixar is considered a threat to Disney is not because they have succeeded in 3D computerized animation where others (except Shrek) have not, but because they excel at the exact same things that the best Disney works did just as well: the storytelling. Toy Story 2 was supposed to go direct-to-video, but its story was so well done and compelling that Disney told Pixar to remake it as a feature.

The medium is not the problem here. It's the message. 2D vs 3D is not what Disney should be concerned with, but rather how to get back to telling a quality story instead of some rehashed dreck. If the story is good, then the audience will come and Disney can continue to build *original* park rides based on those stories.

Yes, Disney needs Pixar because Pixar "gets" what Walt did and will be terribly sorry if they can't come to terms with Pixar on the contract renewal. But Pixar also gets a benefit from the Disney association that they may not get with another studio distribution as the Disney name still carries a bit of class with it, so they may not want to play *too* hard to get. Being independent (like Lucasfilm) may allow you the freedom to create whatever you want and distribute it on your own terms, but it may not be the best solution for everybody.

Who cares?

Who cares what Disney does? Really, the companies animation studios are near completely irrelevant now. Pixar (older children, adults) and Nickolodeon (really young children) are the studios that matter.

3D vs 2D or Corporate Juggernaut vs. Small Studio

Corporate masters who have no competency in the field of understanding the product which their company produces is typical.

Disney sees lucrative results in all their 3D films so far and not much in their 2D so the coporate decision is to dump 2D.

If they got beyond the numbers and looked at the content produced and actually stuck their heads up and looked at ALL their competitors, they'd find a few more interesting things.

The one that comes to mind is that the Japanese animation studios have produced legions of fans among children all using 2D animation.

Most of the Saturday morning lineup is all done in 2D. Merchandising lineups spawned from those are bountifull and I'd guess that unlike Disney's overpriced offerings, they make up for in sheer quantity sold. Every Christmas for nearly the last 5 years, what are the hottest toys?

I've been pondering just who Disney is for these days. Aging boomers and other adults? I think a child would get more out of a trip to Japan and seeign the likes of Yu Gi Oh, Pokeman, Sailor Moon and etc more than seeing mutant mice, ducks and whatever that dog thing is.

Disney's time was. Now they are fading into the past with new studios and ideas to take its place.

it's Disney(TM), not Disney...

for years, Eisner has run Disney into the ground with his absolute focus on the bottom line...while this was good news for shareholders, his approach has been choking off the passion and creativity of this once-proud company...

today's disney is all about creating puffy feelgood movies that push toys at McDonalds--creativity can't survive, much less thrive under the thumb of the marketing department...

stay tuned for Disney's final feature, 'Killing the Golden Goose,' starring Michael Eisner, as the worst Disney villain ever...

Recent BBC Documentary

There was a recent BBC documentary (I think in the Imagine series) where there was some discussion about 2D vs 3D, where someone was saying that come the next 2D hit, they'll all go back to it.

And there was John Lasseter talking about that creative genius Miyazaki. Incidentally who uses 2D.

To concur with many authors on this thread, it's not about the 2d or the computers. In the same way that scripts and characters, not actors make good movies, so scripts and characters, not 3d and computers make good movies.

The Irony of /. lamenting the death of 2D...

is rather amusing, since most agree it is being killed by computer generated 3D animation! You bunch of lame hypocrites!! lol

Seriously though, I also think this is sad news. And I also agree that it is not simply... "2D animation is dead." Disney has not produced a 2D animated smash hit since the Lion King (1994), which is currenty the 10th ranked Domestic movie of all time in terms of ticket sales. The next Disney movie on the list (not including Pixar) is Aladdin at 43rd (1992), Snow White (1937 - Re-release) at 60th, Beauty and the Beast (1991) at 84th, then we have Tarzan (1999) at 85th which did 171 Million which is good. The other Disney animation movies to break 100 million since the Lion King are Lilo & Stich (2002) 145 Million, Mulan (1998) 120 Million, Pochahontas (1995) 141 Million and Hunchback (1996) 100 Million.

Mixed in there are some money losers, Hercules, Atlantis, Treasure Planet, Emperor's New Groove, Fantasia 2000, and Country Bears. In particular Treasure and Atlantis were BIG money losers.

The 1 large strike that traditional hand drawn animation has against it is that it is more time consuming and expensive to do hand drawn today than computer generated. Ultimately this is what will kill it.

I suppose if Disney is gonna keep cranking out the sub-par fare it is better if it cost significantly less and takes less time to make!

NOTE: All Ticket Sales figures from BoxOfficeMojo.com

P2P Killed Disney

<SARCASM>
If it wasn't for all of those Evil Content Pirates(tm) stealing Disney's stuff and putting it on P2P, they'd have money to pay those poor 2D animators!
</SARCASM>

Cyclical Pump and Dump

2D animation will probably keep popping in and out of style forever. The decision of Disney managers is whether to keep those in "out of style" arts around, or dump them when they don't need them and hire them back or contract them as needed.

Just when 2D people learn 3D, it will probably be 90% offshored, so they will dump 3D people also.

Job and career stability is the dying art, not 2D animation.

Uh oh.

The move away from 2D implies that Disney may renew their contract with Pixar(Finding Nemo was one of the last, if not the last movie in the Pixar/Disney contract).

Hopefully Pixar won't be afraid of lacking the shelter of the Disney name(I seriously doubt Finding Nemo would have pulled in so much money had it not been a 'Disney' movie) and will break off to do their own thing. They're a great company with incredible potential.

number of dimensions is irrelevant

All you need is Eddie Murphy playing some miscellaneous beast in order to make a good cartoon.

Disney Australia

Disney is also shutting down there 2d studio in Sydney Australia.

Just to clarify a little...

... And for what it's worth... Disney TV Animation is a separate department, they're the ones who do the TV shows and direct-to-DVD/video sequels. They've had cuts but they're not being dissolved just yet. Pepper Ann fans, rejoice!

I wouldn't doubt that the reasoning for this decision is that their TV shows and non-theatrical sequels bring in as much or more profit as their recent 2-D features-- at only a fraction of the budget. (which should be evident by the quality.)

Remember "New Coke"? How about Bugs?

Any corporate executive decision can be reversed.

Better hope so. 3D makes me yawn. As entertaining as Toy Story and Finding Nemo were, they remained souless and plastic-looking compared hand-drawn images. Like Yoda the Muppet versus Yoda the Kung-Fu Star. One had riveting charisma. The other was entirely forgettable.

Remove the human element too far, and you get video game cut-scenes.

--There's a reason they chose Fish and Toys and Monsters (inc.) for subject matter. It's because computers are terrible tools when compared to the humble pencil when it comes to capturing the complex emotive substance which is found in most animated subjects. Humanoid subjects, especially. --Even in Nemo, the most technically advanced of the Pixar/Disney model, the humans moved around like department store dummies.

Now pull up an old Warner Bros. cartoon and watch the bunny and the duck do stuff. Part of what makes those cartoons so amazing, aside from the infinitely more complex and expressive actions performed by those characters than any fish could hope to replicate, is that 2D can do the impossible, and it can do so with ease. --Exactly because it's 2D pretending to be something else. 2D can bend rules all over the place. As such, it can be far more than even true 3D.

3D, however, must obey rules. (Like the Matrix). and as such, creates its own limitations. Think about that crazy roller-coaster cartoon at the beginning Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" Unless you go Photoshop or (sic) Flash, you're simply never going to achieve that kind of effect.

"There Is No Fish"

Bugs and Daffy cannot be reduced or understood by the painfully limited musings of a f***ing CAD program. It's that simple. Unless you can do the impossible, you can't capture duck, rabbit or humanity convincingly. You cannot accurately mirror the soul Eyes popping out in shock doesn't work in 3D. In fact, eyes popping out in shock is faintly distrubing in 3D. In 2D, however, such an effect is a metaphor, not a direct reality.

The Powers That Be would like you to think that we are limited to this 3D universe and to the 'rules' which govern it. This is entirly false; this cage has a door, but the more of this subconscious hammering we take in the form of computer generated entertainment, now hitting ever more frequently as very young kids, the more limited we will become programmed to think of ourselves as being. One more concrete block to enslave ourselves behind.

But then of course the whole digital trend is designed, I think, to separate us ever further from our own souls. That executives at a giant media corp would be the people to help this along is of no surprise.

-FL

Maybe not funny, but not off topic

C'mon moderators. Off topic? A line from Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarves ("Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to work we go") interupted mid-stream after they find out they're no longer needed? Unfunny, perhaps, but not off-topic.