Nemo was very, very good, but its improper to just compare movies do to the quality of their animation, rather the content of their screenplay. Treasure Planet was an extraordinary movie, possibly better than Finding Nemo.

Is 2-D Animation Dead? Let me put it this way….. Remember the “good old days” when there was no such thing as automobiles and cell phones, when the only way you could say “hi” to your neighbor three miles away was to get on your little horse and ride down there? And people were “a lot more relaxed and a lot more innovative” because such a things as a “cell phone” or a “computer” didn’t exist? Well, though it may not be an airtight analogy, it still fits pretty well on the same ballpark as the whole 2d versus 3d argument that is raging on today. I always get so pissed off when someone says, “Oh, 2D is better than 3D because it is hand-drawn and you feel more spiritually connected with the characters and they’re much more homely and lovable like Simba from the Lion King, and…” blah, blah, blah. I feel the same way when I hear how many animators these days are determined to stick with the old style of doing things, as if the original way of creating animation will last forever as the primary art form. People, for goodness sakes, are you listening to yourselves? Ok, granted that 2D characters are much more “homely and lovable” than 3D characters. So what? A horse/pony is a much more living, breathing, emotional thing than a Sedan or a BMW. And you can feed/play/pet/ride/whatever with it, as opposed to the car, where you only have to wash it once a month and maybe take it to the garage once in awhile. But does that make a horse/pony “better” than a car when it comes to traveling from place to place? I for one would rather wait 15 minutes of getting from point A to point B than two hours. True, maybe I won’t feel the “thrill” of riding a “living, breathing” animal, but at least the mode is much more effective. In essence, isn’t that what essentially 3D animation is? A new “mode” of “traveling” a story to the audience at a much more effective rate? True, granted that it isn’t a perfect analogy, I say again. But to me it seems pretty damn close. Lately many so-called “master” animators, such as Brad Bird, are coming forward with hopes that “2D is not dead” and that somehow in the future Disney or DreamWorks will revisit the traditionally drawn feature film. In a sentence, they are “beating a dead horse”, figuratively speaking. True, they have “hopes” of traditional features being drawn again, mainly because they all grew up on 2D and therefore know no other art form. But does the mainstream media (meaning, the audience, whose pocket money are one of the main reasons why Disney is so huge today) give a crud as to how the story is told or portrayed? I’ll give you the answer with a two-letter word: NO. All the audiences care about is a good story that entertains them that gives them hope and meaning and emotion and stuff like that. They don’t give two shits WHAT Simba looks like, or how realistically Notre-Dame is drawn, or who John Lasseter is. All they care about is getting the most bang for their buck. I hate to say it so bluntly, but its true folks. The only people who really care about 2D are either artists, old film critics or little sticky-fingered children. The top execs at the head of the world conglomerate known as the Disney Co. (namely Michael Eisner) don’t give a hoot as to how they’re next one is portrayed. And quite frankly, neither does the audience. Am I saying this to be cruel? Am I saying this to be mean? Certainly not. I, like most of the people who are lamenting 2D, have grown up on traditionally animated films. I was there when “The Little Mermaid” first came out. I saw “The Lion King” on the wide screen. I watched “David the Gnome” (please don’t ask me what that is) and other Saturday Morning Cartoons before the stupid yellow sponge with the buck teeth came out. So, I “should”, like most of my kindred, lament over a dead or nearly dead mode of artistry. But am I? Do I lament over the fact that we don’t ride horses anymore? Do I give a damn that since the automobile first came out, thousands of horses are neglected and no longer owned by many people? Um…..No. Sorry, but that’s the way I feel. And quite frankly, I wish more animators felt that way too. Believe it or not, I’m an animation student (long-time dream I’ve had) just in my first year, just as this new movie “Chicken Little” is coming out and news that the Australian Disney Studio is closing down. Bad timing eh? Well, probably, if I really did care for 2D animation. To be honest, I’m actually happy and excited at the prospect of using computers and the latest technology to enhance my creations tremendously. Now, instead of having a flat background, I can have a realistic atmosphere with which to walk my characters in. I can even make multiple layers as opposed to just two or three. True, it’s a bummer that there is so much to learn from MAYA, that program Pixar is using, but hey, I’m cool with it as long as I can learn it. I got no problem learning new things, as long as they don’t affect my physical health in any way. I can’t say the same for other animators, but I welcome this “new era” in animation with open arms. Here’s one animator that doesn’t mind change at least. Hate to break it to you aspiring animators out there, but Michael Eisner (and that other guy) is right; 2D animation, as far as full-length, feature films are concerned, are as good as dead. True, maybe there are a lot of “independent” studios out there in the world who can still stick with the old way of doing things, but I seriously doubt they’ll ever have the same impact on 2D animation as Disney did. Keep in mind, I’m not ruling out the premise that “surrealistic” or even non-narrative 2D films can come out; I’m just saying the “golden days” of 2D feature films are over. So you can still at least keep your hopes up there. But as for features, they’re dead….long dead. They died ever since Disney decided to make sequels to their older generation movies (God, someone shoot the person who came up with “Cinderella II: Dreams Come True”). People have moved on; their tastes and perceptions of the world have changed. It’s all part of the natural process. The average Joe Schmo thinks 2D is “old school”; it’s from their pocket money that animators get paid in the first place, so it’s their tastes that matter, right? I should think so. If we animators did everything we liked and what the payers didn’t, how would we eat? Eat our celluloids? Point is, we have to accept the fact that 2D is dead and move on, like the rest of the world. No more Brad Bird’s coming out and saying 2D will be rejuvenated, getting false hopes up, or John Canemaker’s saying that the death of 2D is to be “lamented”. Enough of this crap; I’m sick of hearing it. Forget your false pretensions and biases against 3D and start learning Maya. Or else, like many of the animators from Disney, you’ll be on the street, begging for loose change from some pimp who’ll only give it to you if you humiliate yourself in public. I don’t know about you, but I’m going to convert to Flash. And for crying out loud, stop echoing the Disney animators and crying out for the prospect of 2D. I’ve got enough to do without some pushy old-timer telling me my animation is “static” and “plastic” just because its 3D. Like my college professors. Dan Won

Sometimes I just want to cry...