Search form

2D back at Disney?

45 posts / 0 new
Last post
2D back at Disney?

If visionary means "Have an idea of what everyone on the planet wants but actually get it enacted because you're in a position of power to do so," I am going to have to agree. This and the Catmull article in Florida Today combine for great news. (That I predicted!)

I hope so to, but just because it's animated traditionally, doesn't automaticly make it good. Remember Home on the Range? Atlantis? Anyway, It'll be interesting to see what comes of all this in five years time.

Aloha,
the Ape

See more of The Ape @ http://onetwoclicksmile.blogspot.com/ and https://vimeo.com/40270147

"...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

So I wonder if they hate they sold off all those desks in FL? I wonder if they are using existing 2D stuff from Pixar?

I hope so to, but just because it's animated traditionally, doesn't automaticly make it good.

Couldn't agree more. By the same token, just because it's 3D doesn't mean audiences will flock to it (the position taken by management that led to 2D's demise in the first place).

yup. i think it was more of a box office reaction than a tech reaction. i think the 2d films that bombed were well animated but not immersive stories. while the 3d projects that did so well were superlative in terms of content and presentation.

i for one look forward to Rapunzel unbraided, i hope they keep the look they chose in those stills that were circulating.

Well, according to the article link, Keane was offered the option of doing Rapunzel in 2D, and he opted to keep it 3D.

So what do you think, is he betraying his principles in favour of a fad, moving on to develop artistically or does he just not care?

I think he just wants to really see this through. They've made some amazing developements on Un-Braided. Those stills that are floating around are actually still frames from some test animation. So the animation actually looks like those stills. So I'm kinda interested to see how it's going to come out.

What I'm more curious about is if Lassetter is planning to have all Disney 3D done up north at PIXAR and all 2D down in Burbank, or have each studio do both. Like I said, it'll be interesting to see what comes about in the next few years.

Hopefully this means we'll be seeing Brad Bird's Ray Gun come to theaters.

Aloha,
the Ape

See more of The Ape @ http://onetwoclicksmile.blogspot.com/ and https://vimeo.com/40270147

"...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

Keane's decisions during recent years have made several professionals working successfully in animation rather furious with him. I know because one or two of them told me. He's an influential artist who made a respectable fortune during Disney's second Golden Age, meaning he doesn't really depend on doing all kinds of jobs in the field just to get by. However, he didn't speak out against some of Michael Eisner's unpopular decisions even though he could have, and could've been heard, and that's what has seriously ruffled their feathers.
I don't know Glen Keane as a person, audio commentaries by him being the most I've ever heard of him, so I can't presume to judge whether his decision was to "move on" or to "go with the flow". However, there are others equally successful, skilled and influential as him who chose to remain true to classical, like Andreas Deja. As DSB pointed out, the article states they offered him the chance to make a 2D feature - how many animation artists have that kind of authority during these times?

So what do you think, is he betraying his principles in favour of a fad, moving on to develop artistically or does he just not care?

From what I understand, Disney said this to Mr. Keane: "Either you make a 3D feature film or we're kicking you out".
His decision (from what I've heard) was to keep his job, not to drop 2D animation.

I could be wrong so don't hold this against me. I'm just repeating what i've heard.

James :cool:

Keane's decisions during recent years have made several professionals working successfully in animation rather furious with him. I know because one or two of them told me. He's an influential artist who made a respectable fortune during Disney's second Golden Age, meaning he doesn't really depend on doing all kinds of jobs in the field just to get by. However, he didn't speak out against some of Michael Eisner's unpopular decisions even though he could have, and could've been heard, and that's what has seriously ruffled their feathers.

To what end? Roy Disney hammered Eisner hard, and his reward was to be booted off the board, along with his closest ally. If that could happen to someone with "Disney" in their name, what odds would Keane have stood raising his voice alone in protest? Who are these "professionals" to decide what Keane should or shouldn't have done?

And these professionals with the ruffled feathers - where where they when all this was going down? They may not have had Keane's cache, but everyone's entitled to their opinion and is free to express it (or not, as in Keane's case). Unless these guys did something more than sign an online petition or vote their Disney shares in opposition to Eisner's wishes, they've got no room to talk.

The notion that Keane had a duty to "speak out" simply because he cashed in during a time that the studio was throwing money at him, is silly. Those animators you talked to are just looking for someone to be pissed at, and Keane's a convenient target.

My Rumor Mill says...

Hello.

I heard an intersting rumor that said the animation future might breakdown like this at the new Disney- Pixar Studio...

3D at Pixar

2D at the Disney studio

Think about it ...it makes sense!

Thanks.

Alright, but then who gets to animate the sand? ;)

The sand animators!!!!

Good one.

I think the sand animators or the beach bums up at Malibu, Dude.....

Hello.

I heard an intersting rumor that said the animation future might breakdown like this at the new Disney- Pixar Studio...

3D at Pixar

2D at the Disney studio

Jeez, I hope not. Some of the 3D projects in the Disney pipeline look very interesting, and it'd be a shame if they fell by the wayside simply because of nonsense like who did what in the past. Disney's completely capable of making 3D films, and has gone in some interesting directions that Pixar hasn't. I want to see what the past masters of 2D animation would do with 3D if given half a chance.

Jeez, I hope not. Some of the 3D projects in the Disney pipeline look very interesting, and it'd be a shame if they fell by the wayside simply because of nonsense like who did what in the past. Disney's completely capable of making 3D films, and has gone in some interesting directions that Pixar hasn't. I want to see what the past masters of 2D animation would do with 3D if given half a chance.

I think, given the merger, the two companies are now pretty much interchangeable--at least in terms of staff--and at least on paper.

Pixar has their real estate set up for 3D, and Disney proper can be set up again for 2D inside of a month and a bit. The key departments like Story can probably shift around as needed.

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

"Lesser" animators than Keane left Disney to open their own traditional studios even though they could've stayed with 3D. (Sergio Pablos, James Baxter.) "Those animators" I talked about don't mind 3D per se - what they do mind is being forced to work in the medium because business executives who, to their mind, know nothing of the artistic side of the craft decided that 2D was dead and went on to fund nothing but 3D.

They weren't forced to do anything. They also could have started their own studios if they felt that strongly about it, or go to work for those who did. What you're really saying is that they had to switch to 3D if they wanted to keep working at Disney. That, also, is a choice. They didn't have to stay, and no studio, not even Disney, promises continued employment doing exactly what one wants to do.

They are right that executives know nothing of the artistic side of the craft, nor should they. They do the "icky" business stuff that most artists don't want to bother with, and they made a business decision based on the evidence at hand. Was it a good decision? Probably not. Did it take into consideration all the factors it should? Again, probably not. But make the decision they did, and the company went with it. I still don't see where Keane speaking up would have made a whole lot of difference, especially since (as you admit) the business side knows (and cares) nothing about the art side, which is the argument your acquaintences seem to have wanted him to make.

Another aspect that bears mentioning here is the lengths to which Disney went to make the transition from 2D to 3D as easy as possible for those who decided to stay. From custom tools in Maya to innovative rigs that make it easy to do squash and stretch, set arcs, etc., the Maus Haus went the extra mile (and more) to make it as painless as possible.

3D! 2D! I really don't care, as long it has a well written story.

Software: TVPaint Pro, Harmony Standalone, Storyboard Pro, Maya, Modo, Arnold, V-Ray, Maxwell, NukeX, Hiero, Mari, RealFlow, Avid, Adobe CS6
Hardware: (2) HP Z820 Workstations + 144-core Linux Render Farm + Cintiq 24HD Touch

Their problem was that after Disney eventually abandoned classical, most smaller studios followed suit or had already done so after Pixar's and DreamWork's successes. What they were forced to do to make a living off animation was either bow to the suits' whims or work on third rate direct-to-video productions or mediocre TV shows.

3D didn't come overnight; true, but they had a hard time adapting.

Change is the only constant in this, or any, industry. New techniques, technologies, customer preferences, drive those changes. It's in no way unique to animation - programmers need to learn new coding languages, doctors keep up on breakthroughs in their field. It's part of life, and having a career. One either needs to keep up or get left behind.

When you provide a service, the person paying for that service gets to determine what form they want said service in. Good or bad, the prevailing desire from those producing feature animation the last few years has been for CG. The choices for an animator during times like this are just as you described: adapt or work on "lesser" projects. Each person needs to make their own decision about their next steps, but blaming someone for the overall state of the industry just because they didn't do what you thought they should is silly.

Yes, goldsmiths don't like making horseshoes, and buggy whip manufacturers were upset at the arrival of the horseless carriage - but that doesn't keep it from arriving just the same, regardless of what the head buggywhip maker has to say about it.

...What they really wanted from him was a definite statement, whether pro or contra traditional, but he remained silent while countless animators were laid off when Disney's traditional department closed down.

I think that him staying on and doing 3D, and continuing to do 3D after offered to do traditional is a pretty loud statement on his part.

Aloha,
the Ape

See more of The Ape @ http://onetwoclicksmile.blogspot.com/ and https://vimeo.com/40270147

"...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

Change is the only constant in this, or any, industry. New techniques, technologies, customer preferences, drive those changes. It's in no way unique to animation - programmers need to learn new coding languages, doctors keep up on breakthroughs in their field. It's part of life, and having a career. One either needs to keep up or get left behind.

When you provide a service, the person paying for that service gets to determine what form they want said service in. Good or bad, the prevailing desire from those producing feature animation the last few years has been for CG. The choices for an animator during times like this are just as you described: adapt or work on "lesser" projects. Each person needs to make their own decision about their next steps, but blaming someone for the overall state of the industry just because they didn't do what you thought they should is silly.

Yes, goldsmiths don't like making horseshoes, and buggy whip manufacturers were upset at the arrival of the horseless carriage - but that doesn't keep it from arriving just the same, regardless of what the head buggywhip maker has to say about it.

Ha! You are talking about transportation, not entertainment. There were far more significant developments in production and distribution than the CG itself. Disney purposely diluted the 2D market with tons of cheap 2D to create more product at the higher revenue , so much so that viewers lost any sense of event from their releases and in essence killed their own market . They were working on doing the same Toy Story 3, Valiant , Chicken Little and The Wild when Eisner was axed and the had to buy Pixar.

You are also ignoring the DVD event. Now all kinds of films were experiencing a huge boxoffice drop in revenues because consumer markets were switching to home DVD. Disney was still making large 2D profits in DVD even in a saturated market where they intentionally blurred lines between cheap and classic by using classic feature characters . Their 2D features became non events because of it. CG is no more than a very refined version of the old puppetoons and till Birds integrating of 2D processes in the Incredibles a poor imitation of 2D in my opinion. 2D was never the "buggy whip" (thats really funny ) and the implication that it is antiquated a wishful thought. Time will prove this as we watch 3D live through the same process.

They weren't forced to do anything. They also could have started their own studios if they felt that strongly about it, or go to work for those who did. What you're really saying is that they had to switch to 3D if they wanted to keep working at Disney. That, also, is a choice. They didn't have to stay, and no studio, not even Disney, promises continued employment doing exactly what one wants to do.

They are right that executives know nothing of the artistic side of the craft, nor should they. They do the "icky" business stuff that most artists don't want to bother with, and they made a business decision based on the evidence at hand. Was it a good decision? Probably not. Did it take into consideration all the factors it should? Again, probably not. But make the decision they did, and the company went with it. I still don't see where Keane speaking up would have made a whole lot of difference, especially since (as you admit) the business side knows (and cares) nothing about the art side, which is the argument your acquaintences seem to have wanted him to make.

Another aspect that bears mentioning here is the lengths to which Disney went to make the transition from 2D to 3D as easy as possible for those who decided to stay. From custom tools in Maya to innovative rigs that make it easy to do squash and stretch, set arcs, etc., the Maus Haus went the extra mile (and more) to make it as painless as possible.

Lets get this straight , so this 2Ders were supposed to start there own companies or find someone who did ? If they felt that strongly ? Sorry but that's ridiculous ! Brad Bird couldn't even find funding for his 2D projects after Iron Giant so there was like 0 chance that someone was going to be able to just walk out of Disney and after spending a year or 2 developing a project on their own and grab financing let alone hire other 2D animators. Even Baxter, with his awesome rep doesn't have a 2D feature of his own. There is a big difference between a "a guaranty of doing what you want" and phasing out a form of art.

And what makes you think artists don't want to deal with the "icky" business side of things ? That is again, ridiculous, and of course the business side should know the artistic side. It's exactly that kind of thinking that made the Disney feature budgets unworkable, overly expensive and the films boring . Where are you pulling this crazy statements from ? Keane was powerful within the company so of course it would have made a difference.

Yes, lets mention how Disney tried to make it easy to convert because that happened when Pixar told them they were dumping their deal. Since Disneys film revenues were coming from Pixar losing that deal meant their survival. That was no act of benevolence and considering they were just waiting to see if they could cash in on outsourced films like Valiant it was no more than a business decision.

Here is the problem , everyone going into CG isn't guarantied a job either and if you notice there are significant events happening. CG feature revenues are falling, CG production costs are rising. Antz cost 50 mill , Cars cost 140 million. R&Hues has a unit in India and DreamWorks is setting one up as well and now Asia is training up. Remind you of anything ? Yes, what happened i 2D , only faster. It will be interesting to see if your thoughts on 3D animators all starting their own studio's is the same once outsourcing begins.

Even Baxter, with his awesome rep doesn't have a 2D feature of his own. There is a big difference between a "a guaranty of doing what you want" and phasing out a form of art.

...Keane was powerful within the company so of course it would have made a difference....

... Given your business model that becomes irrelevant since management isn't supposed to care about artistic matters....

...Time will prove this as we watch 3D live through the same process.

Darliester, you seem really angry, and I'm sorry to see that. You also seem intent on broadening this discussion past it's initial focus. I'm not ignoring anything such as changes to distribution, DVDs, etc. They're simply irrelevant in a discussion about why some animators are pissed at Glen Keane. Yes, it's all part of the big picture, but you seem to be implying that some or all of it could have broken differently if he'd only "said something." You accuse me of being ridiculous, yet that's a far more ridiculous notion.

To specifics:

Baxter doesn't have a feature - true enough, but I never said he did. I said he started a studio - which he did, and that other ex-Disneyites could as well (and some have), or they can look for gigs in studios that others start. What's incorrect about that? I never said it'd be easy, or that they were guaranteed success.

Keane was powerful indeed - in an area of the business where, as you point out, costs were growing and revenues shrinking. I don't know how much time you've spent on the business side of things, but people in those areas generally see their clout diminish pretty quickly. And since what we're talking about here is continuing 2D production, how seriously do you think an MBA is going to listen to a guy who isn't putting as much back in the coffers as he's taking out? And do you really think said MBA is gonna give two whits about "phasing out a form of art" (not true, but that's for another time...)

My comment about "Hoodwinked" was in response to a comment about artistic quality and the relevance of animation skill - there was no discussion about the business side of the house anywhere in that exchange. How you twisted that into a business case is beyond me.

Never said 3D wouldn't go through the same process - I agree that it will, and like you said, probably faster than 2D. And?

My buggywhip analogy wasn't meant to imply that 2D is antiquated, only that things change whether we like it or not. Don't assume that I'm anti-2D. In fact, I started out as a 2D guy and currently make my living doing both 2D and 3D.

The reason I say that most artists don't like the business side of things is that we never make a case for what we want using business logic. We approach MBAs with talk of artistic integrity and quality, which those guys don't care about. We never take the time to figure out how to frame our concerns in a way that will resonate with guys who only care about the bottom line. Then, when our concerns are dismissed out of hand we head back to our desk and grumble about how the "suits" are clueless. That doesn't get us anywhere, yet it never changes.

Again, sorry you're angry; obviously this narrow discussion about Keane has sparked a broad hot button issue for you.

Darliester, you seem really angry, and I'm sorry to see that.

Again , another misinterpretation. Facts are the facts.

You also seem intent on broadening this discussion past it's initial focus. I'm not ignoring anything such as changes to distribution, DVDs, etc. They're simply irrelevant in a discussion about why some animators are pissed at Glen Keane.

What's the title of the topic here ? "Broadening the discussion" ? Actually, it isn't irrelevant at all . Keane drew a salary like a full crew on his own a was considered a cost , had the power to outrank directors and when it came to a choice he stuck with the money for moneys sake. I think the animators disappointment in Keane was completely understandable but misplaced.

Yes, it's all part of the big picture, but you seem to be implying that some or all of it could have broken differently if he'd only "said something." You accuse me of being ridiculous, yet that's a far more ridiculous notion.

To specifics:

Baxter doesn't have a feature - true enough, but I never said he did. I said he started a studio - which he did, and that other ex-Disneyites could as well (and some have), or they can look for gigs in studios that others start. What's incorrect about that? I never said it'd be easy, or that they were guaranteed success.

Be accurate, I called your suggestions ridiculous, not you. No, you were talking generally , you said they could start their own studio or look for work elsewhere (let them eat cake fits here ) . Facts are this though they couldn't , even Baxter couldn't. Considering the shambles the industry was left in and now being considered an untouchable media by management that had started layoff plans for it's switch years before.

People were threatened with catastrophic salary cuts or bankruptcy having invested in a future there. Of course market economics had everything to do with it. Starting a business that requires capital to even build a production pipeline and few career animators , with the exception of Keane and Baxter , had the upfront money to do that having become such a large part of a cost in those production budgets .

Keane was powerful indeed - in an area of the business where, as you point out, costs were growing and revenues shrinking. I don't know how much time you've spent on the business side of things, but people in those areas generally see their clout diminish pretty quickly. And since what we're talking about here is continuing 2D production, how seriously do you think an MBA is going to listen to a guy who isn't putting as much back in the coffers as he's taking out? And do you really think said MBA is gonna give two whits about "phasing out a form of art" (not true, but that's for another time...)

I advise managements so my knowledge is fairly extensive.

My comment about "Hoodwinked" was in response to a comment about artistic quality and the relevance of animation skill - there was no discussion about the business side of the house anywhere in that exchange. How you twisted that into a business case is beyond me.

Never said 3D wouldn't go through the same process - I agree that it will, and like you said, probably faster than 2D. And?

Twisted ? I never twisted a thing, I used your own words applied to present day 3D . 3D production costs already are mimicking 2D and thats not all since we are watching those salaries rise given the disadvantage of cost of living here in the states. Outsource production models were already in place after the fall of 2D with a large offshore productions that were willing to switch but waiting to mimic US productions. DreamWorks attempted it with Father of the Pride and weren't that far off being successful. It's just time now.

My buggywhip analogy wasn't meant to imply that 2D is antiquated, only that things change whether we like it or not. Don't assume that I'm anti-2D. In fact, I started out as a 2D guy and currently make my living doing both 2D and 3D.

The reason I say that most artists don't like the business side of things is that we never make a case for what we want using business logic. We approach MBAs with talk of artistic integrity and quality, which those guys don't care about. We never take the time to figure out how to frame our concerns in a way that will resonate with guys who only care about the bottom line. Then, when our concerns are dismissed out of hand we head back to our desk and grumble about how the "suits" are clueless. That doesn't get us anywhere, yet it never changes.

No I wasn't assuming you were anti-2D . I think most artists would find it hard to take the your "buggywhip" analogy any other way. It reads more factually like this:

Why would you want red buggy whips (2D) when there are overly expensive red buggywhips everywhere while the blue buggy whips (3D) are new and prized.

Sorry, had to go back and address the second part. No, actually artists don't approach MBA's with talk of artistic integrity. That is a management lie. They start out with reasonable production scheduals based on their delivery of script and management's commitment to a direction. The management has too many voices, they second guess directors , screw with concepts, hire more management to ask more stupid questions then try to fit a camel through a needle. You can take any 2D animated film produced in the last 30 years and find that model was the basis for cost over runs and expense. The artist's aren't the problem and the fact that producers start out ignoring artist production advice proves that. Why did Chicken Little cost twice as much ? Think that was a problem with artistic integrity ? I think not.

Again, sorry you're angry; obviously this narrow discussion about Keane has sparked a broad hot button issue for you.

I'm not angry at all, just shocked at a view I find limited given the truth of the economics . How can you possibly discuss Keane and his reputation without discussing the industry generally ? And DSB I'm not sure how the topic, which is 2D back at Disney, suddenly became a narrow discussion of Keane . Perhaps you will explain that to me as I don't have a need to discuss it in narrow terms or keep from seeing the truth of how related the artforms are. To me it seems myopic and self serving. The hot button issues aren't mine , I think they are yours , as I'm happy to discuss any aspect of film. Perhaps the economic facts scare you, I don't know.

Again , another misinterpretation. Facts are the facts.

...Keane drew a salary like a full crew on his own a was considered a cost , had the power to outrank directors and when it came to a choice he stuck with the money for moneys sake. I think the animators disappointment in Keane was completely understandable but misplaced.

Do you know Glen? Have you talked to him about why he moved to 3D? Do you have any first hand information as to why he made the choice to stay at Disney and work on 3D? You keep talking about facts, but this clearly sounds like an oppinion to me.

Besides, the title of this thread is "2D back at Disney." How this spiraled into 2D vs 3D again I'll never know. There is actually a sticky at the top of the forums specificaly dedicated to that topic.

Personally, I hope Disney goes back to traditional animation. I think Lassetter has a good head for art and buisness and his choice to let directors deside what medium they want their film to be animated in is very smart. Whether they'll be able to keep a full staff of both 3D and traditional animators employed constantly is a different problem altogether.

Aloha,
the Ape

See more of The Ape @ http://onetwoclicksmile.blogspot.com/ and https://vimeo.com/40270147

"...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

Do you know Glen? Have you talked to him about why he moved to 3D? Do you have any first hand information as to why he made the choice to stay at Disney and work on 3D? You keep talking about facts, but this clearly sounds like an oppinion to me.

Besides, the title of this thread is "2D back at Disney." How this spiraled into 2D vs 3D again I'll never know. There is actually a sticky at the top of the forums specificaly dedicated to that topic.

Personally, I hope Disney goes back to traditional animation. I think Lassetter has a good head for art and buisness and his choice to let directors deside what medium they want their film to be animated in is very smart. Whether they'll be able to keep a full staff of both 3D and traditional animators employed constantly is a different problem altogether.

Aloha,
the Ape

I've heard Keane talk about it in person yes but that is irrelevant to the discussion . Factually the management had already decided to go 3D and the choice was change or say goodbye. Are you disputing that ? I never assigned anything to his motivation and stuck to the possible reasons that animators were "pissed off" . I personally don't care why he chose 3D.

Myself I think Lasseter is brilliant. I think his choices have been outstanding. Whether he can manage two companies without losing something in one or the other has yet to be seen. He has one problem though, his damned artistic integrity. Lets see if he can do it because I know he has the sense.

By the way Ape , where is your sig from ?

"...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

I never assigned anything to his motivation

Really?

when it came to a choice he stuck with the money for moneys sake.

Hmmm....

Really?

Hmmm....

Yes , there was no choice , I thought I made that clear ? Do you have a evidence of an option he was offered ? If not then .....

Be accurate, I called your suggestions ridiculous, not you.

Any other hairs you'd like to split? ;)

you said they could start their own studio or look for work elsewhere (let them eat cake fits here ) . Facts are this though they couldn't , even Baxter couldn't.

When a company shuts down a line of business, it affects those who work in that line. If there are no more 2D jobs at Disney - for whatever reason, wrong or right - what are the options for those people who held those jobs? Find another one or create one. Like I said. So what's the problem?

I'm pretty sure Baxter did... as did these folks, also ex-Disney

People were threatened with catastrophic salary cuts or bankruptcy having invested in a future there.

And? I've been laid off from a couple of jobs where I'd "invested in a future" because things changed. It's life, it happens. It sucks when it happens, but it does - for reasons both good and bad.

As you know, animation was booming in the late 80's/early 90's, in an unprecedented fashion. Busts always follow booms. It affects those involved in the boom. "Hope for the best, plan for the worst" fits here.

No I wasn't assuming you were anti-2D . I think most artists would find it hard to take the your "buggywhip" analogy any other way.

I told you what I intended - I have no control over what you persist in believing.

Sorry, had to go back and address the second part. No, actually artists don't approach MBA's with talk of artistic integrity. That is a management lie. They start out with reasonable production scheduals based on their delivery of script and management's commitment to a direction. The management has too many voices, they second guess directors , screw with concepts, hire more management to ask more stupid questions then try to fit a camel through a needle.

No, you're not angry...:rolleyes:

And DSB I'm not sure how the topic, which is 2D back at Disney, suddenly became a narrow discussion of Keane . Perhaps you will explain that to me as I don't have a need to discuss it in narrow terms or keep from seeing the truth of how related the artforms are.

If you want to see how this thread (which I started, btw) took this turn, go back and read it. It's all right there, if you care to look.

The hot button issues aren't mine , I think they are yours

Whatever you say...

Perhaps the economic facts scare you, I don't know.

Keep presuming...

Keep presuming...

You were the one who took me calling your idea ridiculous as a personal insult aimed at you , so the hair was already split. It's pretty clear who is overly sensitive here if you can't tell the difference. ;)

Gosh golly, lets see, a couple thousand animators tossed on a market that is no longer there because this company just isn't good at film , hmm what's the problem ? Gosh , I don't know ? But then, I'm not one of them :)

Both James and Firefly are doing servicework, in other words, they aren't fronting or owning projects and this is not steady employment , freelance and nonunion . I doubt he is employing the 1000's laid off or even a fraction of it .

Well everyones been laid off, I don't see that as anything new but there are greater forces at work than simple unemployment.

You find that angry ? I like how you trimmed off the fact I was talking about Chicken Little and not 2D. Kind of kills your point doesn't it ? It wasn't "artistic integrity" that took it a year over budget despite your assertion thats what makes artists so incapable of dealing with "ickky" business. :rolleyes:

Yes , you did say what you intended it "the buggy whip" analogy meant. Just letting you know that it makes absolutely no sense. Sorry . If you're happy with that just expect that reaction.

Lol ! I find it incredibly humorous that you "assume" I'm angry and yet call my assessment of you "presumption". Like you say, whatever :)

You were the one who took me calling your idea ridiculous as a personal insult aimed at you

I did? News to me.

It's pretty clear who is overly sensitive here

Yes, it is.

Both James and Firefly are doing servicework, in other words, they aren't fronting or owning projects and this is not steady employment , freelance and nonunion .

So steady employment is the issue? Historically the animation industry has not offered steady employment except to a very few. That's the "bust" part of "boom and bust." If someone goes into animation expecting steady employment over a multi-decade career, they picked the wrong business.

Lol ! I find it incredibly humorous that you "assume" I'm angry and yet call my assessment of you "presumption".

If you care to look, I said you appeared angry. That's different than assuming you're angry; it allows for additional evidence to alter said appearance. Thank you for providing it.

Since this seems to have devolved into mostly who said what, I'm done. Have the last word if you like.

I did? News to me.

Yes, it is.

So steady employment is the issue? Historically the animation industry has not offered steady employment except to a very few. That's the "bust" part of "boom and bust." If someone goes into animation expecting steady employment over a multi-decade career, they picked the wrong business.

If you care to look, I said you appeared angry. That's different than assuming you're angry; it allows for additional evidence to alter said appearance. Thank you for providing it.

Since this seems to have devolved into mostly who said what, I'm done. Have the last word if you like.

Well no, actually you said I was angry. You -> "Again, sorry you're angry". Perhaps that was like the "buggywhip" thing , not what you intended it to mean but saying something else. Doesn't matter.

And . You-> "You accuse me of being ridiculous"
If I intended to call you ridiculous as a person I could see how you would make the statement but I believe that some of what you threw out to there seemed on the ridiculous side to my experience. Especially the MBA's stuff. It's is just nothing like that world I know and in fact harps back to a thousand repeated discussions about the subject.

Steady employment only becomes an issue when dumping a large workforce on to the near nonexistent (oversaturated) market. The ups and downs of a contract freelance work normally would apply but animations history has little to offer in terms of explaining the present 2D market or lack of market. Though it does foreshadow what may happen in 3D. For Disney to go back to 2D now is a subject beyond our means , so many hurdles before thats even considerable . Thanks for the last word.

My signature is a quote from Harry Potter darliester.

Aloha,
the Ape

See more of The Ape @ http://onetwoclicksmile.blogspot.com/ and https://vimeo.com/40270147

"...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

Disney 2d Guys Are Being Hired Back

HELLO.

Several Disney 2D folks are being hired back - such as Eric Goldberg and others... like Musker and Clemmons. Supposedly other folks like James Baxter were always in the wings - working on 2D projects...

Thanks.

Yah, I'm not getting involved in the conversation but just to keep correct tabs, I thought that one of the whole reasons James Baxter started his own place was to gather a group to do a feature.

Your right Jabber

Hello Jabberwocky,

Yes you are correct Treasure Planet was half bad...maybe even 3/4 bad.:D

Thanks,

Well no, actually you said I was angry. You -> "Again, sorry you're angry". Perhaps that was like the "buggywhip" thing , not what you intended it to mean but saying something else. Doesn't matter.

And . You-> "You accuse me of being ridiculous"
If I intended to call you ridiculous as a person I could see how you would make the statement but I believe that some of what you threw out to there seemed on the ridiculous side to my experience. Especially the MBA's stuff. It's is just nothing like that world I know and in fact harps back to a thousand repeated discussions about the subject.

Okay, just so everyone knows.... even though darliester scraps with DSB like I do, we're not the same person! :D

Give em heck, I say, but all in good debate and fun.

Follow @chaostoon on Twitter!

Okay, just so everyone knows.... even though darliester scraps with DSB like I do, we're not the same person! :D

No sweat, chaos. I don't think anyone thinks you and I are the same person...;)

World Cup Fever

Hello.

I thnk Jabberwocky is suffering from a severe case of WCF (World Cup Fever). All of Germany seems to be involved with one rather huge party... usually its just Koln (Cologne) - the world's party city.

By the way they (KOLN) produce most of the animation in Germay. KOLN is Germany's media town.

I really miss "my people". The Italians are "MY PEOPLE" too.

I wonder if Disney will restart its 2D studios in Europe?

Thanks.

Okay, just so everyone knows.... even though darliester scraps with DSB like I do, we're not the same person! :D

Give em heck, I say, but all in good debate and fun.

We aren't ? Notice we are never around at the same time ? Very suspicious if you ask me :)

I hope so to, but just because it's animated traditionally, doesn't automaticly make it good. Remember Home on the Range? Atlantis? Anyway, It'll be interesting to see what comes of all this in five years time.

Aloha,
the Ape

Hey, I liked Atlantis! At least it didn't have any characters breaking into song.

Keane made 25,000 a week rumor has it. The average animator was making 1,600. Keane cost what 15 or 16 animators cost. Really, in 3D , you are irrelevant as James Baxter found out so was Keane worth that in 3D ? I think not. Think other animators were upset at him ? I think so.

Really, in 3D , you are irrelevant as James Baxter found out

Wow. If you think the skills of a given animator are irrelevant in 3D, then you need to watch "Hoodwinked" and compare it to any Pixar movie...

Wow. If you think the skills of a given animator are irrelevant in 3D, then you need to watch "Hoodwinked" and compare it to any Pixar movie...

Given your business model that becomes irrelevant since management isn't supposed to care about artistic matters.

Whatever he got payed, if it was more than normal it might be what they feel he's worth...I don't think Disney pays him just for the marks he can put on paper. Once he's a "name" he can attract new employees, be marketed, plus there might be a price on the distinctive look and feel they think is profitable that he has the best handle on. Just a theory though.

randomness