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.

  • Perhaps in America for a Time . . .

    2D animation is still very much alive in parts of Europe and alive and kicking butt in Japan, Studio Ghibli is the one that always comes to mind. As long as Studio Ghibli continues to make heart-breakingly vibrantly gorgeous 2D animated films with wildly imaginative storylines that they do, I'll be pleased. That said, I really miss the classic animation of the west. I adore "Princess and the Frog" and I wish Disney did not give up. Sigh.

  • It's Not Dead

    Hand drawn animation isn't dead because of Sponge Out Of Water. A film can have 2D Animation & still work. I Say This is of people like John Lasseter & Tim Burton. People like them believe in story & characters not action & visuals. That's why 2D Animation Isn't Dead.

  • Nah . .

    It may not be popular now but soon people will get tired of CG and 2d animation will make a comeback.. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .

  • 2D can't nor will ever be dead

    If it was, then the new SpongeBob movies would be entirely 3D, DreamWorks wouldn't be developing Me and My Shadow, and the Samurai Jack film would be dead (and they're all not). 2D isn't dead and believe it or not, 3D is starting to loose its quality. Mr. Peabody and Sherman was under whelming at the box office (grossing $268 million worldwide on a $145 million budget), Legends of Oz bombed big time (grossing $11 million on a $70 million budget) and last years Epic, despite being called epic, was underwhelming to many people. Even Pixar's recent films after Toy Story 3 didn't live up to their previous films, as good as they were; Cars 2 received mixed reviews and is their weakest film (grossing $559 million worldwide on a $200 million budget), Brave had a good, albeit clichéd plot, but underwhelming action, and was darker than Pixar's previous films, and Monsters University also had a good, albeit clichéd plot, but many people felt it wasn't necessary, despite this line from the movie being retconned: http://www.slashfilm.com/monsters-university-director-explains-the-continuity-problem-in-mike-and-sullys-backstory/. So bottom line, 2D isn't dead, it just needs another good comeback.

  • My opinion on this is

    While it is dead in the U.S.A. it is not in other country's. I mean two of the Oscar nominated of 2013 are traditional animated. Traditional animation will come back. Eventually people will get tired of every other movie being CG. That's my opinion. But maby i'm just dumb an it is really dead.

  • My opinion on this is

    While it is dead in the U.S.A. it is not in other country's. I mean two of the Oscar nominated of 2013 are traditional animated. Traditional animation will come back. Eventually people will get tired of every other movie being CG. That's my opinion. But maby i'm just dumb an it is really dead.

  • It certainly is not

    While there has been a recent decrease in the number of 2D animated films in the States, that does not by any stretch of the imagination mean the art form is dead. Besides the fact that it is still thriving more then some live-action movies are in places like Japan in the from of anime, I am confident that the genre will return to its previous strength sometime in the coming years.


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