Original message ([an error occurred while processing this directive] Views )[an error occurred while processing this directive]
| OmegaDog 735th Post
 
Red Carpet Regular Member+
   
    
    
|  "Disney CEO Michael Eisner: "2-D is dead.""
, posted Sat 16 Aug 20:31
I'm on the mailing list of Disney 2D animator Lon Smart, and his latest e-mail made note of how Disney is essentially winding down and stopping production of 2D animated features (hence making him former Disney 2D animator as of this week).
An excerpt from his e-mail:
Disney had no 2D films lined up after the last film that is in production is wrapped up. There were a few that have been finished for release after Brother Bear. "Home on the Range" and "Angel and her no good Sister" (formerly "My Peoples") They have about twelve 3D animators in California developing some 3D films. But they will probably be sent off to India to be finished up. Disney has layed off over 1,500 animators. Basically everybody. California, Paris and Florida.
He also provided this link to this article:
http://www.mouseplanet.com/david/dk030814.htm
It's not an objective article; it has an anti-Disney-corporate-management stance. [Not that I mind, given Disney's been going down the financial toilet under these guys.] Basic gist: Disney's 2D films haven't been doing well financially; big name 3D films have. So, Disney's management believes that people only want 3D films now, notes how Pixar's contract with them is almost up, and is dumping 2D animation to focus on 3D. The author communicates the idea that Disney's management believes that going 3D will be their complete saving grace, ignoring concepts of storyline/content (Pixar films, Shrek) and ignoring flops of 3D films focusing on technology (FF: The Spirits Within).
Though it's dangerous to assume, from any slanted article, that some of the quotes and mentioned actions aren't taken out of context, Disney's higher-ups aren't exactly revered in the business community, so I'll just agree that Disney's screwing itself over.
So then I say -- the parallels to the video game world are just freaky. You'd think these guys would ever look at applicable case studies...?
"I'll punish you with my burning fist of justice!!" | CCT: NEXT STAGE IS 14 |
|
|
Replies:
|
| Dr Baghead 2450th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
    
    
|  "Re(1):Disney CEO Michael Eisner:"
, posted Sat 16 Aug 21:53
quote:
I'm on the mailing list of Disney 2D animator Lon Smart, and his latest e-mail made note of how Disney is essentially winding down and stopping production of 2D animated features (hence making him former Disney 2D animator as of this week).
An excerpt from his e-mail:
Disney had no 2D films lined up after the last film that is in production is wrapped up. There were a few that have been finished for release after Brother Bear. "Home on the Range" and "Angel and her no good Sister" (formerly "My Peoples") They have about twelve 3D animators in California developing some 3D films. But they will probably be sent off to India to be finished up. Disney has layed off over 1,500 animators. Basically everybody. California, Paris and Florida.
He also provided this link to this article:
http://www.mouseplanet.com/david/dk030814.htm
It's not an objective article; it has an anti-Disney-corporate-management stance. [Not that I mind, given Disney's been going down the financial toilet under these guys.] Basic gist: Disney's 2D films haven't been doing well financially; big name 3D films have. So, Disney's management believes that people only want 3D films now, notes how Pixar's contract with them is almost up, and is dumping 2D animation to focus on 3D. The author communicates the idea that Disney's management believes that going 3D will be their complete saving grace, ignoring concepts of storyline/content (Pixar films, Shrek) and ignoring flops of 3D films focusing on technology (FF: The Spirits Within).
Though it's dangerous to assume, from any slanted article, that some of the quotes and mentioned actions aren't taken out of context, Disney's higher-ups aren't exactly revered in the business community, so I'll just agree that Disney's screwing itself over.
So then I say -- the parallels to the video game world are just freaky. You'd think these guys would ever look at applicable case studies...?
WAIT?!?! Is this just feature films or ALL 2D animation?
Because Disney already stole Clerks:the Animated Series from me, if they take Kim Possible too I'll murder everyone whose ever looked at their stupid Dwarf-pillared HQ!!!!
(wow, I sure am glad I changed the emphasis of my major from "tradtional animation" to "character design illustration", now I can just compete in an over-filled job market were I'm servely out classed, rather and an over-filled job market were I'm servely out classed and there's no more companies hiring in that field EVER)
Devil May Cry:the movie - A ViewAskew Production?
|
| Hungrywolf 2220th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
| "Re(1):Disney CEO Michael Eisner:" , posted Sat 16 Aug 22:13
quote:
I'm on the mailing list of Disney 2D animator Lon Smart, and his latest e-mail made note of how Disney is essentially winding down and stopping production of 2D animated features (hence making him former Disney 2D animator as of this week).
An excerpt from his e-mail:
Disney had no 2D films lined up after the last film that is in production is wrapped up. There were a few that have been finished for release after Brother Bear. "Home on the Range" and "Angel and her no good Sister" (formerly "My Peoples") They have about twelve 3D animators in California developing some 3D films. But they will probably be sent off to India to be finished up. Disney has layed off over 1,500 animators. Basically everybody. California, Paris and Florida.
He also provided this link to this article:
http://www.mouseplanet.com/david/dk030814.htm
It's not an objective article; it has an anti-Disney-corporate-management stance. [Not that I mind, given Disney's been going down the financial toilet under these guys.] Basic gist: Disney's 2D films haven't been doing well financially; big name 3D films have. So, Disney's management believes that people only want 3D films now, notes how Pixar's contract with them is almost up, and is dumping 2D animation to focus on 3D. The author communicates the idea that Disney's management believes that going 3D will be their complete saving grace, ignoring concepts of storyline/content (Pixar films, Shrek) and ignoring flops of 3D films focusing on technology (FF: The Spirits Within).
Though it's dangerous to assume, from any slanted article, that some of the quotes and mentioned actions aren't taken out of context, Disney's higher-ups aren't exactly revered in the business community, so I'll just agree that Disney's screwing itself over.
So then I say -- the parallels to the video game world are just freaky. You'd think these guys would ever look at applicable case studies...?
I have a feeling that 2-d games and animation will go 3-d. Then, eventually it'll come back around and go 2-d again.
"You're good baby I'll give you that.....but me? I'm magic!"
-Bullseye Daredevil movie
Hungry Like the Wolf
|
| OYashiroForever 431th Post
Gold Customer
| "Disney CEO Michael Eisner: "I'm a tool"" , posted Sun 17 Aug 17:30
Ridiculous... while I've never really been a fan of Disney's animated films (with a couple of exceptions, namely Aladdin and Robin Hood), the fact that the films they make that bomb happen to be traditional animation (Nadi... I mean Atlantis, Treasure Planet, etc.) and the films that Pixar makes that make a bazillion dollars happen to be CG is purely coincidental. The fact of the matter is that Pixar crafts wonderful tales that a) aren't rehashes/retellings of classic fables, myths, and novels, b) don't beat you over the head with moral symbolism and political correctness, and c) don't have irritating "wisecracking" non-human sidekicks.
Please... I dare anyone to find an animated Disney film post-Little Mermaid that doesn't have a talking animal/robot/non-human sidekick. Aladdin? Check. Lion King? Check. B+tB? Check. Hercules? Check. Mulan? Check. Hunchback? Check. Emperor's New Groove? Check. Atlantis? Check. Treasure Planet? Check. Am I missing any?
I suppose it's not that big of a deal, but in my mind it kind of symbolizes Disney's way of thinking the last 10 years or so: find something that works and then sanitize it, dumb it down, and mass-produce it until you've stripped it of everything that made it entertaining in the first place.
"Only two things are infinite the universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the former."
"Your denial is beneath you and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs I see through you."
|
| Hungrywolf 2223th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
| "Re(1):Disney CEO Michael Eisner:" , posted Sun 17 Aug 18:00
quote:
Ridiculous... while I've never really been a fan of Disney's animated films (with a couple of exceptions, namely Aladdin and Robin Hood), the fact that the films they make that bomb happen to be traditional animation (Nadi... I mean Atlantis, Treasure Planet, etc.) and the films that Pixar makes that make a bazillion dollars happen to be CG is purely coincidental. The fact of the matter is that Pixar crafts wonderful tales that a) aren't rehashes/retellings of classic fables, myths, and novels, b) don't beat you over the head with moral symbolism and political correctness, and c) don't have irritating "wisecracking" non-human sidekicks.
Please... I dare anyone to find an animated Disney film post-Little Mermaid that doesn't have a talking animal/robot/non-human sidekick. Aladdin? Check. Lion King? Check. B+tB? Check. Hercules? Check. Mulan? Check. Hunchback? Check. Emperor's New Groove? Check. Atlantis? Check. Treasure Planet? Check. Am I missing any?
I suppose it's not that big of a deal, but in my mind it kind of symbolizes Disney's way of thinking the last 10 years or so: find something that works and then sanitize it, dumb it down, and mass-produce it until you've stripped it of everything that made it entertaining in the first place.
Beauty and the Beast does-not have a talking animal/robot/non-human sidekick. All of those objects that talk are actually humans, so you're wrong. 
 MESSATSU
Beauty and the Beast is my favorite Disney animated movie, next to Sleeping Beauty (arriving on DVD this Sept. Yay!)
"You're good baby I'll give you that.....but me? I'm magic!"
-Bullseye Daredevil movie
Hungry Like the Wolf
|
| OYashiroForever 432th Post
Gold Customer
| "Re(2):Disney CEO Michael Eisner:" , posted Sun 17 Aug 18:35
quote:
Beauty and the Beast does-not have a talking animal/robot/non-human sidekick. All of those objects that talk are actually humans, so you're wrong.
By that logic, Emperor's New Groove wouldn't either since the llama is actually a human... however, in both cases, they spend the vast majority of the film as animals/objects that normally can't talk. Dr. B's point about the Lion King is pretty valid, though that's an entire movie about talking animals. Oh, and I forgot Lilo + Stitch... which has Stitch.
Anywho, while I'm sure someone will find a hole in my original statement, my point still remains the same: the recent batch of Disney animated films don't suck because they're 2D, they suck because they're creatively bankrupt and Michael Eisner blaming traditional animation is yet another instance of his (and the rest of the corporate executives at the big D) completely missing the point and taking a once proud company one step closer to financial ruin.
"Only two things are infinite the universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the former."
"Your denial is beneath you and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs I see through you."
|
| Radish 1552th Post
Red Carpet V.I.P- Platinum Member
| "Re(3):Disney CEO Michael Eisner:" , posted Sun 17 Aug 18:45
quote:
Beauty and the Beast does-not have a talking animal/robot/non-human sidekick. All of those objects that talk are actually humans, so you're wrong.
By that logic, Emperor's New Groove wouldn't either since the llama is actually a human... however, in both cases, they spend the vast majority of the film as animals/objects that normally can't talk. Dr. B's point about the Lion King is pretty valid, though that's an entire movie about talking animals. Oh, and I forgot Lilo + Stitch... which has Stitch.
Anywho, while I'm sure someone will find a hole in my original statement, my point still remains the same: the recent batch of Disney animated films don't suck because they're 2D, they suck because they're creatively bankrupt and Michael Eisner blaming traditional animation is yet another instance of his (and the rest of the corporate executives at the big D) completely missing the point and taking a once proud company one step closer to financial ruin.
Disney has its thumb in so many pies it will never go out of business. They own things people would never accociate with them (like small town newspapers and I *think* electrical plants). If they continue on this path though I would hope they stop making movies since they haven't put out a godd one in who knows how long. I don't count Pixar movies in Disney's credit.
|
|
|
"Re(2):Disney CEO Michael Eisner:" 
"Re(1):Disney CEO Michael Eisner:" 
"Re(4):Disney CEO Michael Eisner:" 
