Katzenberg disses 2D animation (1 Viewer)

[Michael St. Clair]

From http://www.usatoday.com/life/enter/m...06-18-lilo.htm

"Traditional animation as it existed in the 20th century is in the 20th century," he says. "We're in the 21st century, and we're going to continue to push it into being competitive in today's world. I'm not holding onto something for emotional reasons. What happens with Lilo & Stitch is not relevant to me. We don't make those anymore."

You know, I'm no Disney fanboy, but I'm looking forward to 'Lilo & Stitch' more than any animated feature since 'The Iron Giant'.
I'd hate to see good 2D animation go away.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Considering the "quality" of Katzenberg's work, he's the *last* person who should be critical of others... :rolleyes

 

[Geoffrey_A]

Computer Animation is the flavour of the month. We're at the early stages of CG features right now, and as such there hasn't really been a bad CG film yet (excpet for those who didn't like Final Fantasy). What's going to happen is this: The studios are going to believe they've found a golden goose, and make more and more CG features. Sooner or later, they're going to produce some mediocre films, and then one of the studios will quietly release a classicly animated film, and the public will respond because it won't look like everything they've been handed by the studio for a while. This is the point when studios will hopefully realize that it's not the medium that counts, it's the content. Animation, CG, Live action, it all comes down to the film itself. 2D isn't going anywhere, but it may take a brief hiatus while the CG world implodes on itself. Eventually, Pixar, Disney, Dreamworks or Fox will make a cg film that just sucks and people will begin to understand that just because it's been made on a computer doesn't mean it's going to be good.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I agree wholeheartedly with Katzenberg. Why even bother with traditional canvas art...use a computer to draw the picture :rolleyes
2D animation is a beautiful artform, and Disney, it's greatest artist (but not it's only one). I am a huge fan of 3D films, but that in no way changes how I feel about traditional animation. There is a real beauty in the artform that is timeless. If it fades away for any reason, in due time, it will return. While I am amazed and thrilled at how quickly computer artists have elevated themselves to the current level they play at, how their characters can emote, how artistic they have become, it's apples and oranges to me. I see Pixar films because they are PIXAR films...not 3D animation films. I saw Shrek because it was funny. I saw Atlantis because it was Disney. I'll see Lilo & Stitch for the same.
Katzenberg is just a bitter man. He knows what he knows...that doesn't make it the truth. I expect Lilo to beat Spirit hands-down.
Take care,
Chuck
Edit: Geoffrey made on of my points better than me...read his bit again about 2D taking a "break" at most. The film is what matters, not the medium.

 

[Patrick McCart]

While Katzenberg has some bitter memories of Disney, he forgets that 3-D animation wouldn't have happened without traditional animation.

 

[DaveF]

I think The Emperor's new Groove shows that the flat 2D visual style is far from dead. I was put off at first, because, for Disney, it seemed rudimentary. But then the movie sucked me in, and I realized it was a really fun movie, with a novel (for Disney) artistic style.
I love the new 3D stuff (Toy Story 2, esp.), but I also love the 2D stuff. I look forward to Lilo & Stitch, as well as Spirit (since it seems to be, at heart, a 2D animation).

 

[Morgan Jolley]

There is a difference between CG movies and movies made with computers. What they should do for 2-D animated films is have the artists do the drawings in ink, scan them into a computer, and then do all the colors and animation using the computer.

2-D animation, back when it was first coming out as films, was usually used for films that were surefire successes. Now, its not that way. Same will happen to 3-D CGI.

Also, CGI is used in a LOT of animated films.

Why haven't they made a CG film with cel-shading (a special effect used mostly in videogames that adds a black outline to the 3-D models)? It would be like a mix of 2-D and 3-D.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

What they should do for 2-D animated films is have the artists do the drawings in ink, scan them into a computer, and then do all the colors and animation using the computer.

Um, that's the way they've been doing them for over a decade.
Also, there has been a bad computer-animated 3D movie. It is called 'The Clone Wars'. More elements are computer generated than anything else.

 

[Bryant Trew]

2D animation will/should never go away. It is an artform in its own rights.

CG Films like FFTSW where great technical demos, but they don't replace 2D animation. If anything at all it challenges real actors.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Also, there has been a bad computer-animated 3D movie. It is called 'The Clone Wars'. More elements are computer generated than anything else.

Assuming you're talking about the film I think you're talking about, it's called "Attack of the Clones."

 

[felix_suwarno]

cel animation?

emperor's new grove. iron giant.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Of course Iron Giant was a mix.

3-D CG animation is fine and neat and a beautiful new art form. But how in the hell does big K equate that to the death of another art form that is DIFFERENT and UNIQUE from the new one.

I'll tell you how he does it...he is a short sighted maroon on the subject.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

If you look at Toy Story, it was 100% CGI, but it was directed, animated, voiced, and overall felt like an animated film. FF:TSW was done in a totally different fashion, so it felt like a sci-fi live action movie as opposed to an animated one.

If you watch the old Bugs Bunny cartoons, they feel like cartoons; you don't accept the characters as humans. But go watch a movie like Princess Mononoke and you can accept that the characters have human emotions and act like humans.

My point is that just because a film is CGI doesn't mean its automatically going to try to push the limits of simulated realism.

And also, the director of FF:TSW said he made the film totally CGI because of several reasons, one of them being that the film would not be doable in live action. If you watch the movie and think about it, it wouldn't be doable without a LOT of CGI. I'm talking Episode II levels.

 

[Robert Cook]

The transcript of the April 18, 1999 live chat with Bill Kinder and Leo Hourvitz of Pixar has a couple of interesting passages which address some of the issues in this thread. Here they are, for your convenience:

Where do you feel CGI will fit into animated features in the future?
Is there a future for hand-drawn animation?
Obviously, we'll keep seeing more and more CG, both in terms of full-length
features and in terms of CG and live action. But personally, I don't think
that we'll ever leave the aesthetic of the traditional animated character behind
completely. It's just different from the feeling you get with 3D CG, and I think will
always have it's place. Of course, right now 3D CG is the growing field, so it'll
probably get a lot of attention the next few years... And, as we've seen, there'll
be a lot of CG integrated into features based on traditional cel animation...
So really, it's not CG, it's about whether the 3D aesthetic or the cel aesthetic
dominates in a particular film -- the computers will be helping make pretty
much all of 'em...
.
.
.
Can you duplicate the "look" of a film like, say, "Little Mermaid" with a computer,
and would you want to?
Um...I think you could probably duplicate the look of a frame
if you really wanted to, but getting some kind of vector-oriented computer
system to duplicate what an skilled animator with a pencil can do is hard.
There are systems that do a pretty good job producing cel animation from vector
outlines, but I'm not 100% convinced that they can duplicate with the very best
animators can do on a feature film project...

I agree, and in stronger terms than he was willing to use. It’s a matter of which aesthetic you wish to achieve, particularly with the characters, and which tools are the most appropriate for the job. For a moment, let’s forget about the rendering, which is a mostly technical endeavor, and consider the interface between the animators and the computers. Computers are merely tools--just mindless, non-creative things, much like pencils or paintbrushes. You could manipulate a 3D model on a computer, or draw the characters by hand (using a graphics tablet, or pencil, paper, and scanner), which would result in very different styles of animation. They both might be called "animation," but they're really two very different artforms.

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

Frankly, I can't wait for movies to be all CGI, get rid of the actor, get rid of their overinflated ego. Seriously, it isn't the medium, it is how well it is used to tell a story or convey a feeling.

 

[steve jaros]

I respect Katzenberg, but that seems like a really silly comment to make. Perhaps his thinking was addled by his need to take another shot at Disney (please Jeff, that had a soap-opera appeal to it 5 years ago, but get over it. Didn't they pay you 400 mill or something?).

Katz implies that the mere passage of one century into the next makes an art form with a rich 70 year history obsolete. That is nonsensical.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I want to see them create a way to create a character in a computer in 3-D (so that there are no mistakes in their designs between frames, pretty much achieving perfection in the likeness of the character between different shots), then animating them in 3-D with a cel-shaded technique so it ends up looking like a 2-D production with realistic shadows, animations, etc. Hey, maybe even find a way to make each frame turna 3-D image into a 2-D image so that it looks like someone drew it by separating a character from the background.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

I want to see them create a way to create a character in a computer in 3-D (so that there are no mistakes in their designs between frames, pretty much achieving perfection in the likeness of the character between different shots), then animating them in 3-D with a cel-shaded technique so it ends up looking like a 2-D production with realistic shadows, animations, etc. Hey, maybe even find a way to make each frame turna 3-D image into a 2-D image so that it looks like someone drew it by separating a character from the background.

Isn't that what was done in 'The Iron Giant'? Obviously it would be harder with a human or animal than a robot, but given how well cel-shading is working in certain video games there is no doubt that we'll see something like this for more organic characters in feature films. Not that I would consider it a total substitute for hand drawings, but it would be another style with merit (if not overused).

As far as the Katzenberg thing, it's pretty obvious to me that it is a lot of sour grapes. Dreamworks hasn't hit a homerun in 2D animation like a Disney blockbuster does. 'The Prince of Egypt' was close, but they just haven't pulled off the grand slam.

But they kicked financial butt with Shrek, so now they are writing off 2D like it is a lesser artform.

The fact is, Katzenberg is a studio suit with an ego, and he will prefer financial success over artistic success.

It looks like 'Lilo and Stitch' is probably going to be first place at the box office this weekend. 2D is not dead financially, and it sure as hell isn't dead artistically! I doubt any of us would want to live in a world where all animated features are 3D.

 

[Randy Tennison]

To draw inferences to Katzenidiots quote:
"There should never be another black and white movie, now that we have color!"
"There should never be another 2d live action film, because 3d is available!"
"There should not be any more small format prints, now that we have IMAX available!"
Black and white films can be more effective in expressing emotions. 3d movies can be a lot of fun, but do we really need them? And IMAX, while impressive, is exhausting to watch!
2d animation will continue on. Frankly, let Katzenmoron stop making 2d. Let him spend 5 years per movie. Less competition should finally get my Disney stock some upward momentum!

 

[Robert Cook]

Bhagi Katbamna wrote:

Quote:

Are you talking about simulating certain imperfections? The whole point behind hand-drawn animation is the artistic nature of caricatures and their movement, as done by hand, which is impractical to simulate using other techniques. Maybe you could, if you really, really tried, but why not just draw the characters, which would be easier and more effective? In analogy, does everything look like a nail whenever you have a hammer in your hand? That's what many people think of computers, especially in the movie industry.