I have to say, I generally really enjoy your articles, Pimp; however this one seemed very uncharacteristic of you and quite disappointing. I believe a very short time ago, you sang a different tune. All forms of art are essential, and will continue, or at least that is what I believe. I do hope that 2d animation continues in the mainstream, but it is possible that it will retreat in to the art world for a time, perhaps forever. Does that make it less valuable as a form? I hope not! To me, it simply means that to be doing it, you have to really love it. Perhaps it will keep out so many of the hacks I have encountered desperately trying to ring a few pennies out of a sloppy job. In the meantime, I think it is important to support the arts, including the Ottawa Festival. I do hope you achieve success there.

Agreed again, Pimp. I´d also add that those "classics" are only "classics" because they have... class. And also because time has passed over them. Time has this magical touch, do make things look better after the passage of time. 2001 sucked when it was first released, and now it´s considered a... classic. And so many movies were the best ever made when they were released, and today we barely remember them. So let´s dig what is instead of cry over what is not, shall we? Skol!

I laugh every time Hollywood execs are called "businessmen." Businessmen don't make decisions out of fear, nor do they follow "trends," but create them, contrary to popular belief. 1. The past few Pixar movies have all cost close to $100 million. Not really cheaper. Plus, that doesn't factor in the technological development required for those great looking movies (specialized shaders, plugins for hair, "Monster's Inc." and water "Finding Nemo.") You don't even want to know how much it cost to have and maintain a renderfarm similar to the ones ILM, PDI, or Pixar have. 2. Same amount of people are required for both types of animation. This is a FACT. 3. Sainton (whom I wouldn't consider a businessman) is just following a trend, and getting in pretty late at that. The only reason so many CG movies are succeeding is because they are just BETTER. Better written, better characters, AND NOT FORMULAIC in both story and aesthetic. (Although Finding Nemo was a bit formula by Pixar standards.) Can you really tell the difference between Dreamworks' SINBAD and Disney's TREASURE PLANET. 4. GOOD 2d animation and 3d animation take the same amount of time. Also a fact. 2d animation is not as expensive as Hollywood production companies make it seem. Disney has been proud for decades to release those numbers just to dissuade any other company from getting into the market. When you spend a year in production, then all of a sudden change the story, forcing your staff to redraw and ink half of the scenes, of course that will cost more money. Blame the execs, not the medium. 5. People still will watch GOOD 2d animation, or else the Animatrix would NOT be the #1 DVD seller. That one DVD shows more variety and creativity than the past DECADE of Disney, Dreamworks, and FOX animation, both 2d and 3d. You want more unique 2d, watch out for Tarentino's KILL BILL. 6. Speaking of The Matrix, don't expect Revolutions to break any records. Reloaded showed the inherent weaknesses of relying on too much CG animation. I have talked to many people and none of them are going to see the Hulk for just that fact. Don't even mention Star Wars as that series has been supported by fans for years now. Audiences are already getting tired of the over-the-top effects movies. Too bad the execs won't see this for some time. 7. You can't compare writing to animation. One is representational, the other is visual. I doubt the sight of the actual words "Catcher in the Rye" do anything for people, yet many love the book, regardless of the font or printed page. There is only one way to draw Mickey Mouse. Cinema is also represenational, where it's main draw is not the visual image but what that image represents, or else we wouldn't need every movie trailer to be narrated. Animation's main draw is its visual aesthetic, so the difference between 2d and 3d is like the difference between Punk and Heavy Metal music. Finding Nemo's story was good, but do you honestly think that it would have had that huge opening weekend if it didn't look the way that it did (Case in point: If you notice, rarely in animation trailers do they ever explain the story.) In tandem, I also doubt "The Godfather" is so many people's favorite movie because of the cinematography. 2d animation will probaly end up being done entirely on computers, but I'll guarantee you that they won't all look like Shrek. I usually look foward to reading your articles Pimp, but this one seemed abnormally ill-informed. You weren't payed by any particular company to write this up were you? What you are saying is the same thing people said when photography was introduced. It didn't replace painting, and more importantly, it freed the painting medium from its pursuit of realism. In fact, the earliest forms of cinema were ANIMATED BY HAND, but when both Edison and the Lumiere Brothers invented the motion camera, it didn't stop animation from thriving. I'm not worried about 3d, because it has great artists leading that medium, but 2d needs to fire it's agent now because it's getting a bad rep. I'll now go watch my copy of SPIRITED AWAY, the 2D WINNER OF THIS YEAR'S ACADEMY AWARDS. P.S. Do you acutally think that SAG will allow digital actors to replace real ones. I don't go to movies to see how nice Julia Roberts' skin looks. I don't think I'm in the minority here either. The DSM-IV will have to input a whole new category of disorders when women start swooning over a digital hunk instead of Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise.