Amazon.com Widgets
  • In The U.S., At Least, Yes It Is

    Why is hand-drawn in such a flux in America?

    Presumably it is because of financial reasons.

    Ever notice how animation in America is often relegated into family pictures? Most people know that Hollywood's primary motivator is to make money. Understandable, but often times the dollar signs coerce people to things just for the sake of making extra money. In regards to animation, CG has now become the "de facto" method of animating because it has been seen to make more money than hand-drawn.

    A recent case in point: Disney recently released the CG "Frozen." It has thus far made upwards $700,000,000 worldwide, placing it as one of the highest grossing films PERIOD.

    But what one may not realize is that "Frozen" was intended to be hand-drawn following the CG "Wreck-it Ralph." (In fact, the original name for "Frozen" was "The Snow Queen," based on the same fairy tale.) See, John Lasseter, when he became CEO of Disney Animation after the Pixar merger, had made a promise to release a hand-drawn film every couple of years, starting with "The Princess and the Frog" in 2009.

    Http://www.Firstshowing.Net/2009/disneys-wants-a-hand-drawn-animated-movie-every-2-years/

    Princess and the Frog went on to gross approximately $267,000,000. This was actually quite impressive for Disney, and hand-drawn in general. "Princess" was made on a budget of $105,000,000, so a profit was made. Not to mention that Tiana was to be inducted to the Disney Princess line, a huge money maker for Disney.

    And yet the following year, "Tangled" made nearly double the worldwide gross of "Princess", at approximately $590,000,000. In addition, Rapunzel was added to the Disney Princess line up, and actually sold MORE products than did Tiana.

    The year after "Tangled", the hand- drawn"Winnie the Pooh" was indeed released ... Alongside the latest Harry Potter movie. The budget (thankfully) was low, and Winnie's gross of $33,000,000 was enough to make a small profit.

    Nonetheless, the numbers spoke to Disney; they saw their hand drawn films making small but underwhelming profits, while the CG "Tangled" had out-grossed BOTH "Princess" and "Winnie" combined. When "Wreck-it Ralph" was released and grossed $470,000,000, it only furthered the idea that CG was superior. Disney then concluded that hand-drawn was not going to make them as much money as a CG film would.

    As a result of this, "The Snow Queen" was renamed to "Frozen" and re-pitched as the CG film currently playing. This was a managerial push, mind you, not a "stylistic" choice as some interviews with the directors may lead one to believe.

    Http://animationguildblog.Blogspot.Com/2014/01/and-sometimes-just-irritates-me.Html

    This is not to discredit the movie what so ever. It's a visual beauty with a story to match. But one must be in denial (or extremely dense) if that doesn't speak of how traditional animation is seen in America. It is seen as at best a throw back to the classics, while at worst a waste of time and money that can be used to make a profitable CG film. Sad but true.

  • In The U.S., Yes, Hand Drawn is Pretty Much Dead At The Moment

    Why is hand-drawn in such a flux in America?

    Presumably it is because of financial reasons.

    Ever notice how animation in America is often relegated into family pictures? With the advent of CG animation, this is slowly changing, but most, if not all, CG films made in America are family friendly. However, where there is still prejudice against hand-drawn for being too juvenile, CG animation, at least partially, has encouraged people that it's okay to like a family movie so long as the visuals are incredibly realistic. Most people know that Hollywood's primary motivator is to make money. A noble one, but often times the dollar signs coerce people to things just for the sake of making extra money. Especially in regards to animation, where CG has now become the "de facto" method of animating.

    Case in point: Disney recently released "Frozen." It has thus far made upwards $700,000,000 worldwide, placing it as one of the highest grossing films PERIOD.

    But what one may not realize is that "Frozen" was intended to be hand-drawn following the CG "Wreck-it Ralph." (In fact, the original name for "Frozen" was "The Snow Queen," based on the same fairy tale.) See, John Lasseter, when he became CEO of Disney Animation after the Pixar merger, had made a promise to release a hand-drawn film every couple of years, starting with "The Princess and the Frog" in 2009.

    Http://www.Firstshowing.Net/2009/disneys-wants-a-hand-drawn-animated-movie-every-2-years/

    However, Princess and the Frog went on to gross approximately $267,000,000. This was actually quite impressive for Disney, and hand-drawn in general. "Princess" was made on a budget of $105,000,000, so a profit was made.

    Yet the next year, "Tangled" made nearly double the worldwide gross of "Princess", at approximately $590,000,000. In addition, Rapunzel was added to the Disney Princess line up, and sold MORE products than did Tiana.

    The year after "Tangled", the hand- drawn"Winnie the Pooh" was indeed released ... Alongside the latest Harry Potter movie. The budget (thankfully) was low, and Winnie's gross of $33,000,000 was enough to make a small profit.

    Nonetheless, the numbers spoke to Disney; they saw their hand drawn films making small but underwhelming profits, while the CG "Tangled" had out-grossed BOTH "Princess" and "Winnie" combined. When "Wreck-it Ralph" was released and grossed $470,000,000, it only furthered the idea that CG was superior. Disney then concluded that hand-drawn was not going to make them as much money as a CG film would.

    As a result of this interpretation, "The Snow Queen" was renamed to "Frozen" and re-pitched as the CG film currently playing in theaters. This was a managerial push, mind you, not a "stylistic" choice as some interviews with the directors may lead one to believe.

    Http://animationguildblog.Blogspot.Com/2014/01/and-sometimes-just-irritates-me.Html

    This is not to discredit the movie what so ever. It's a visual beauty with a story to match. But one must be in denial (or extremely dense) if that doesn't speak of how traditional animation is seen in America.

  • It's so hard to see the old days are gone

    Because everything will never be forgotten. Even our old classic carton movies like "whine the pooh" or all dogs go to heaven. But as I always saying there's nothing is going to be different if that doesn't think so about what was amazed as old animation was seen in America. As for today there are sometime to be improved.

  • Sometimes it won't

    Well, some Disney movie is a visual beauty to some stuff that we watch so much. Some people has to get along with it (or not) if there's no disposition. So sometimes doesn't speak of any full movie produce operation new style animation. Sometimes it's a wonder ways to watch some movies.

    Somehow when I was first person doesn't like 3D animation. But we can't hurt anybody's feelings if they had 3D animated movies.

    This is not the way things are about the movies. But it's about the way it looks. So there some 2D animation movies that we did watch.

  • I think It will comeback

    In my opinion we like to watch some kind of cartoon movies like "Peter Pan", or "Balto" even today many people want to see what is like when they watch TV. So for now on their's any animated movies that we watch is some kind of hand drawn, it was just the way it looks, and the way it was natural.

    So we would only hope if the Disney studios would make a 2D animated movies again.

  • I think it wont

    I have always preferred 2D animation because it is less expensive, simpler and it does not give you a headache like 3D animation does. And while you need glasses for 3D animation you, you do not need them for 2D animation. 2D animation is clearly more efficient and less expensive.

  • I think it wont

    I have always preferred 2D animation because it is less expensive, simpler and it does not give you a headache like 3D animation does. And while you need glasses for 3D animation you, you do not need them for 2D animation. 2D animation is clearly more efficient and less expensive.

  • I think it won't die

    So you know some 2D animation will still be around because there are the way we were that we learn from. So i watched some collection of Disney dogs movie ever since I was a kid. Like the 101 Dalmatian, (1961) lady and the tramp, (1955) and Oliver and company (1988) so there can be the next one today not the 3D animated one.

  • No it won't.

    Everything eventually will still be around as the 2D animation can comeback in the United states of america. So for now on I love the animation that was the way it looked and the things that was natural and perfect when we seen them when I was a kid. And i hope the Walt Disney studio will have back soon.

  • The future 2D animation

    Back in the early twentieth century some max (but I don't remember his last name). He invented the 2D animated movie so you know the 2D animation was nicknamed cartoon. The cartoon is that kind of movie that the people watched like the wonder brother's bugs bunny, the Walt Disney's Donald duck, lady and the tramp, or Oliver and company. So during the 1940's they made a princess cartoon movie called snow white and the seven dwarf so later in 1955 the Walt Disney picture is looking for a story about dogs that was in love. So the lady and tramp was introduce. Then they made 101 dalmatians in 1961 and there cartoon movies has kept being practicing until the introduce of the 3D animation but in 1988 "Oliver and company" was showing in theaters then the "beauty and the beast" was showing in 1991.

    In 1993 the Universal entertainment was looking for a cartoon movie that was a true story about dogs who handle a problems and dangerous situation, and facing the challenge such as "Balto" but 2 years latter in 1995 "balto" was showing along with the 3D animation's movie about a toy story. So later on the 2D animation continue in the 21st century until the early 2010's the 2D animation was dying. Due the problems with the replacement of the 3D animation.

    But until now and today the 2D animation will never die and they will comeback in the U.S.A. as the 2D animation in China had survived.

    So hopefully we can have our hope to save our tradition. Then the 2D animation will survive and continue to be produce so I think it will never die.

  • No not today

    Do you know why not today? Because people love today's cartoon movie besides their will be future 2d animated. So as you can see there are lot's of thing that we learn from so this time all as we care is the our things that we love like the 2D animation. So think it great to watch it.

  • I think not

    We use to watch a cool Disney carton movies back than. So we enjoyed it as you know we have to improve how we US traditional animated movies so this time let's be reasonable to that. Okay? We want everything to stay the same today because everything has meant so much too us.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.