The Animated Scene: Where is Animation Headed?

Joseph Gilland questions the demise of 2D/3D debate and wonders where animation is headed for the next generation of artists, in this month’s “The Animated Scene.”
Posted In | Magazines: AnimationWorld | Columns: AniScene

While I sit working away on my eerily glowing, 21” high-tech digital drawing monitor though, I am experiencing an interesting phenomenon.

I sit close enough to the studios kitchen and eating area, to over hear a lot of the conversations going on during lunch hour, a time when I usually dig out a sandwich and continue working away without pause. And what I am hearing is that the debate over the future of our industry and the hubbub over 2D and 3D, is anything but over. And it’s not the old farts like me who worked for two decades in the industry before the receptionist even got a computer, who are talking about it. It is the fresh young kids barely out of school who are speculating about Pixar possibly doing a 2D film. It is these young artists who are noticing that the box office success of 3D films lately, is beginning to wane with the saturation of the market and every Tom, Dick, and Harry studio under the sun racing to create another 3D embarrassment. It is today’s youthful students of animation who, finding out that there is an old-school animator in their midst, ask me endless questions about what it was like to work on big 2D feature films. And they are hungry for a bit of that action. They are far more interested in what Sylvain Chomet’s next film is going to look like, than the storyline of DreamWorks next 3D debacle. And chances are, they spend a lot more time watching primarily 2D anime and television cartoons, than they do watching Chicken Little, Over the Hedge or The Wild. Of course the interest in good 3D animation is there, don’t get me wrong. But I am amazed to see the enthusiasm, excitement and interest, which good old 2D animation still generates in this new generation of animation students. I continually receive emails from animators young and old, who are looking for resources to help them learn about hand-drawn effects animation as well, having read a small excerpt from my upcoming book on the topic. It amazes me sometimes, but it’s true. A lot of young animation people these days just aren’t getting the kick they are looking for from working on purely digital productions. There is a thirst for the old ways, a keen desire to hold something in their hands and feel it, and a passionate love for the drawings they see in books and at Comic-Cons and on my dusty old animation table.

So what is this new generation of animation artists going to do with the current animation landscape as they grow up and into it? If the so-called debate between 2D and 3D has really been put to rest, then how come I am getting so many questions about where it is all headed? I sense a groundlessness and restlessness in many of these young artists. Digital files, which are dragged and dropped and cut and pasted freely, don’t have the enduring magical quality of a real scene folder, full of paper drawings. And because they are so darned easy to simply delete, they lack a sense of reality that we all seek when we crack opened a good book and flip through its pages.

I don’t have any answers to these questions. I have no idea where it is going. But the questions are juicy and fertile. The digital age is thoroughly upon us, and it’s not going to reverse itself and go backwards; that much is for sure. We have new tools and we are going to use them to our advantage and/or to our detriment. Digital file management and tracking can be a nightmare at the best of times and we still rely heavily on hard-copy tracking sheets printed out for us to hold in our hands the answers to our production coordination woes. Notes jotted on a piece of paper are still the glue, which hold many a studio together. Is our dependency on 0s and 1s going to get the better of us? Will the written word on the page or the hand-drawn drawing go the way of the do-do bird finally?

But my real question here is — what the young creative people in the industry are going to do with this back-to-the-future landscape set out before them? Their thirst for old-school knowledge is real and palpable. Their respect for the old school of animation is enormous, as is their desire to somehow take part in it, learn from it and put it to use in their present day culture. Kids growing up with Maya, Softimage, AfterEffects, Houdini and Flash are painfully aware of the quality of old-fashioned animation techniques that still taunt them when they pop an old Disney classic into the DVD player. With the exception of the very biggest and best animation studios on earth, the majority of digital animation they are seeing lacks life altogether. A really sad percentage of animated feature films and television shows coming out today don’t really have the stuff that makes animation sing with life and the sooner we admit that, and address that, the better. Watching Final Fantasy “Episode 22” is leaving us a little cold and although we may be mesmerized with what we can achieve with 3D animation, it is the vibration of life that the young students of animation today are seeking. I think they are going to insist upon it and hopefully they can raise the bar once again by studying and honoring our animation legacy and bringing it back to life with whatever tools they need to use to make it so. The animation table graveyards may one day actually be rattled and awoken. Who knows? What I know for sure is that the real magic of animation isn’t dead by any stretch of the imagination. Just as many young musicians have put away their synthesizers and picked up acoustic instruments, the animation youth of today thirst for something they can put their hands on. Sitting in front of a computer screen for eight or 12 hours a day, well, have you tried it lately? Did you feel good at the end of the day? Does that important file that somehow mysteriously got deleted and messed up your whole day haunt you at night? Where is it? What is it? Where are we headed?

Read Part 2 of Where is Animation Headed?

In his 30-year animation career, Joseph Gilland has worked with studios as diverse as Walt Disney Feature Animation and the National Film Board of Canada. He has worked on all styles of animation, experimental films, television series, commercials, theatrical feature films, stop motion, title sequences, live-action films and documentaries. He is writing a passionate book about the art of animation.







Comments


I am a huge fan of classical animation. Hence why I am learing how to do it at school. But I know that work in the 2D classical field is at a minimum. It's been deemed too expensive by the financial backers and it's future now rests overseas. Now us future animators looks at computer software programs like Flash or Maya as the ways we'll put bread on our tables ( even if we don't like it). I still believe the occasional 2D movie will be made. Much like how we still see the occasional claymation movie. But 3D is where the jobs are. Every CEO wants to make the next big 3D blockbuster like Shrek or Toy Story. The mistake is that 3D is simply the medium used to tell a story. It alone does not make a good story. I can't imagine Beauty and the Beasts done completely in CG. There is money to be made in classical animation if you have a great story. It's too bad too few people producing movies truly understand this.
J Bennett (not verified) | Sat, 10/21/2006 - 00:00 | Permalink
I think that traditional animation is not dead, if you look at Howls moving castle, the film made 400 million dollars worldwide. a success of that film was primarily based on its domestic market in asia and the success of such films show no sign of going away. Hollywood created this mess because they saw the success of shrek and ice age and jimmy neutron and thought that that was cold hard evidence that nobody wanted to see traditional animation, they reacted too quickly and know you see this influx of poor animaly buddy animation that isnt preforming as well as its predecessors. its the same way why people got fed up of traditional animation because people were offering the same disnesque thing.just look at the lush deatail of a japanese animation film and compare it to that of a modern day american traditional animation. it is that same simplified yet beautifully exagerated animation we have come to expect. the Digital techniques are needed to provide new cheaper and innovative ways for the filmaker to use, and they are important. the studios have to recognise that the ever growing success of cg for the sake of cg has run its course, and now its a great oppurtunity with all the digital techniques around us to tell different innovative stories.
Mark Pragasam (not verified) | Fri, 10/20/2006 - 00:00 | Permalink
I think Joe raises some good questions and some good points were made in the comments as well. Most traditional/2d animation spit out in commercial venues has become so stiff that perhaps it should no longer be called "animation" but simply just moving pictures, maybe stacked symbol movies- what ever. Animation business is just like any other corporate scheme in that it wants make product as quickly and cheaply as possible. That's business. The question isn't that of 2d/3d but rather that of art vs. business. Many of the most beautiful and cutting edge animations don't/won't make huge profits, or any at all. Stiff low budget animation with good marketing potential, or blockbuster 3d duds with famous voice actors and weak stories can make huge profits. It is like a cheap mass produced figurine that can sell millions of copies in some mail order catalog while a truly exquisite artistic sculpture could end up not making the sculptor a dime unless some wealthy patron thinks it would look good in his/her sitting room. The animation industry will hit peaks and valleys while some one crunches numbers and decides futures based on the bottom line. In the mean while artists will use any and every technique to produce stunning visual poetry. The more technology becomes available to the masses the more oppourtunity we have as artists to produce something brilliant and fresh, whether we do it with paper or pixels, or to put food on the table or in the wee hours of the night after our day job.
Tom Garella (not verified) | Thu, 10/19/2006 - 00:00 | Permalink
I give lectures on Technology and motion capture, and we have at work the latest Mocap technology as well as software and video cards. With all this technology I still tell people the same thing you've mentioned in your article, the three most important aspects of animation are STORY, STORY, and STORY. There is the front story, the back story and the multilevel interacting stories that make the better animations stand up shoulders above the rest, because whether they are 2D or 3D, their characters have more personality, their history is more engaging, and the viewer really wants to know the ending. Too many of these new TECHNO Animations are all technique, and no substance. Like a musical with the sound off, they aren't going to get an audience unless we get back to telling a good tale.
T McSheery (not verified) | Wed, 10/18/2006 - 00:00 | Permalink
Very interesting article . The main issue is not whether 2D versus 3D but the way they're applied. I'd also like to add an interesting interview from Brian Eno said in FutureMusic. Though it focuses on music production it raises some of the issues discussed here: ''a computer can make a poor idea look pretty good really quickly...in a few minutes you can have something and you think, Hm this sounds pretty much like music. What happens then is that you've overlooked the fact that there isnt a very original part to it other than it sounds pretty good...So what happens is people get to that stage very quickly and then spend a long time trying to find an idea to put into it. You know ''what can we do to make this something? Whereas I think, "Why not start with the idea and then build the rest around it, rather than building this container and then find an idea to force into it? It is very restrictive. ....''The Future will be like Perfume...With perfumes they find the demographic first. Its for women 25-35, professional A,B,C, group, price...They've done all of that before they designed the perfume and then they go to the person with the nose and ask''What do you think it should smell like? Then they dont even say that.''We want it a bit like opium but a bit more sort of young and a bit like this and that. It seems to me that a lot of music is like that. Like put everything else in place and then find the idea, then find the thing that actually people are going to be buying. People buy music not for the interesting kick drum sound or the clever loop but because they are moved in some way.THe whole package is designed and then: Now what are we gonna put up in there thats going to move people? I think this is sort of the wrong way round a little. More or less the same thing happens with animation as a medium. Nah...I'll stick to avant-garde and ignore the more commercial features.....
Petran (not verified) | Tue, 10/17/2006 - 00:00 | Permalink
I feel strongly that the ease with which animation can be created these days is the biggest problem. 3d allows one to produce a "movie" once one has mastered a computer program. Many current practitioners of the art never learnt to draw properly. This is why some of the best 3d stuff can be seen in short films, where ARTISTS transform their visions (which doesn't include monstrous box-office takings) into superlative work. Everyone wants to make a feature; very few are equipped to do so.
Tinus Horn (not verified) | Sun, 10/15/2006 - 00:00 | Permalink
Dear Anonymous, Read carefully, and you might see farther than a 2D-3D debate. The real intention of the column is simply to ask the question "where is it going?" Regardless of the technique. And what are the young people new to the industry going to do with it all? I for one, choose to be optimistic and upbeat about the possibilities. Having an opinion apparently wasn't enough to have your response censored. Good thing. Every opinion is valuable, even a doom and gloom, pesimistic opinion, with a touch of anger, sarcasm, and insult added to keep it spicey. We are doomed to mediocrity, dear anonymous,only if we allow it.The choices we make every moment in our creative lives will determine whether or not we stoop to mediocrity. The 'state of the industry' is not resonsible for our individual creative choices or outlooks... Any moron with even an ounce of intelligence knows that! JG
Joseph Gilland (not verified) | Fri, 10/13/2006 - 00:00 | Permalink
While 3D CG can be wonderfully vibrant and involving, it hasn't proven itself able to be capable of serious storytelling, at least in my experience. The closest yet to a CG movie that adults can watch on their level would be "The Incredibles". 2D, in the meantime, can be a comedic medium *or* a serious one, and the style chosen for the animation can easily be dark and gritty or light and airy if the artist desires. Can 3D manage that kind of range? The popularity of 3D animation thus far is due to three things that I'm aware of: (1) the newness of it (the basic phenomenon of the fad), (2) some genuinely good CG movies that got everyone's attention early in the game (here's looking at you, Pixar), and (3) the belief at the management level of at least one well-known animation company that 3D is the trendy future of animation that audiences want to see, a belief held by executives who are not artists or storytellers. But I doubt that many young animators were ever keen on *replacing* 2D with 3D, cel-shaded or otherwise, even though they were keen on trying out this new style. I personally learned the magic of hand-drawn animation through serious storytelling in anime; others learned it through comedic stories in Looney Tunes. None of us are going to forget it any time soon as we grow up and some of us enter the animation industry. I think a lot of us in the audience are yearning for 2D animation to make a resurgence, whether it comes from Lasseter using the resources of Pixar/Disney, or someone out of left field. It will take something truly great to do it, though. I hope that it will be a serious movie, not a funny one, because, although I love comedy as much as anyone, I want to see animation get more respect in America. Even when it was 2D, animation was never respected in this country as it is in, say, Japan, and perhaps a popular, critically-acclaimed story told in 2D animation can bring the field some recognition. I, for one, cannot see an adult-level story happening in 3D, which is why I cringe at the decision to make the animated Star Wars series in 3D. Star Wars is, of course, for all ages, but will a 3D show be taken seriously by adults? What sort of ratings will it get without the adult audience watching? In any case, I hold out hope for that hypothetical movie that draws people of all ages, or even just adults, and makes them say, "Wow, I'd like to see more of this kind of thing." A movie that incidentally, by the way, happens to be hand-drawn. -- A lover of animation
Michael Loudon (not verified) | Fri, 10/13/2006 - 00:00 | Permalink
I think this is a cycle in many of the arts. Technology is invented to augment and accelerate the rate of production - such as 3D - and soon becomes the medium of animation, rather than the tool. 2D animation teaches people the elasticity and dynamics required to make charcters believable. If you only ever used 3D, it's quite possible your animation lacks the experience and qualities of twentieth-century 2D toons. I think there is a huge resurgence of hand-drawn cell animation for this very reason. I don't consider myself an animator in the 'classical' sense - that I don't have the sheer patience that cell teaches you. This is a small crisis - but only the animations that evoke that classical quality really gain critical attention anyway, and if the next generation of animators recognise the time and practice it requires to create great animation, then our industry is far from doomed.
ed brown (not verified) | Fri, 10/13/2006 - 00:00 | Permalink
INTRESTING PERSPECTIVE J G ,AND THERE STILL IS SOME HOPE IN WHAT YOU SAY IN THIS ARTICLE: There is at least one concept out there that follows some very unusual processes which will actually require the 'old' 2-D ways of creating animation,but with a slant on the whole thingy. Indulge youurself for a few lines here,and I will describe this process that is now well-on developed from ten years of experimentation. That process involves anyone good enough with a camera,film or digital,but mostly film, to shoot thousands of pictures of objects(developed-printed-then cut-out parts by siccors) that translate into any possibilities of(pasting-up,by hand) the end result ,that-be; a cartoon character or background ! If the famous Jessepi Arcimboldo, a 15th century master/ artist could draw(photo collaged) portraits, in his mind, of royalty, using sticks-twigs-berries-etc.and found objects of nature,that resulted into a complete picture ,then realise that this very similar process is being done with only a camera and sicssors,by yours truly,but with photos of gems-minerals!!In fact, my character images /portraits are now being compared,by famous artists in europe, to Arcimboldo's 'style',in a modern day situation.If you think arcimboldo was a nobody then search; "PRI ARCIMBOLDO" a site that praises this master painter.This site was a competition for new techniques in art and awarded the artist whom 'can show the way'. This could be done in new animation art,but you would need a 'benifactor ' to reward such 15 thousand euros awards.Hewlet Packard,in france, did this for the site.The site is now in limbo,pending further developments. So far, in the ten years I have been working on this,I figured the process will need several angles(drawn) from the origional collage for animation 2-D, of the "photo-collaged' character,put together by hands-on photo-collaged-assembled composition and design,BUT...the rest of the angles-perspectives for animation , WILL NEED TO BE HAND DRAWN. Furthermore, the artists -drawing these new angles will need to be able to draw in a 'photo-realistic' manner,which is very demanding! Yet ,the end result would be a new 'look',that being slightly photographic,and photo-realistic-drawn, but not the least bit resembling ANY current (styles) animation process!This will also require only P-7 for touch up and the final styles/look.More details -technicals need to be addressed,perhaps by YOU-JOSEPH.You are the teacher. Joseph,anyone can develope my process,with many kinds of materials,and I can prove this,but one needs many(lifetime) talents to fill the demand for excellence,and this requires dedication to 'the arts'.One must learn these skills,and then some, that YOU-Joseph, say are being lost. I would be glad to collborate a new article with-you JOSEPH,as the question man/ writer/interview-er and let's see where this will take us; perhaps into just the wishfull thinking your young artists want to return too? Cheerz from DAWK See my concept at www.sito.org and at www.pixiport.com for samples.as; Dale "DAWK' Mc Farlane
DAWK Mc Farlane (not verified) | Wed, 10/11/2006 - 00:00 | Permalink

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.