A handful of years into the 21st century, traditional 2D theatrical animation looks to be an all but extinct species. Today, CGI films rule, filling the feature pipeline as far as the eye can see. It will be quite a while before we find out if Disney’s Frog Princess — the first flat film from the studio since 2004’s Home on the Range [2] and still in the planning stages — is a harbinger of the medium’s return or a doomed, noble gesture.
In the meantime, 2D is safe, sound and thriving in TV series and direct-to-video releases — but even here computer animation is becoming more and more of a player every day. NBC’s primetime Father of the Pride [3] came and went quickly in 2004 and there are only a relative handful of 3D CG series now on the air, it’s still a far cry from 1994 when ReBoot, the first CG-animated network TV series premiered on ABC — a year ahead of Toy Story’s arrival in movie theaters.
ReBoot was created by a four-man team that included Ian Pearson and Gavin Blair, the pair responsible for the primitively animated appliance movers in Dire Straits’ famous Money for Nothing MTV video. On the strength of that single credit and backed by a British company that subsequently fell by the wayside, the show was sold to ABC and Canada’s YTV. Mainframe, a CG production facility named for ReBoot’s mythical computer city, was launched in Vancouver Canada to produce the series.
“We made every mistake possible,” says Dan Didio, at the time an ABC programming exec and, later, ReBoot’s story editor. That’s the only way you’re going to learn, and we wound up thriving for it. We were charting new territory, which made it kind of fun. We didn’t understand the production problems at the time. Mainframe was pushing programs further than ever before. We became pretty much a beta test site for computer software that was applied later on down the line.” The first of its kind, ReBoot had to cope with the all the challenges of being a pioneer. After airing four episodes in the fall of ‘94, the show actually went off the air until January to allow for the longer than anticipated production schedules.
Dire Straits’ blockheaded workmen made a cameo appearance in an early episode where they were unceremoniously clobbered by falling sandbags. “Ian can’t stand being reminded about those characters all the time,” Didio confides. “He wanted to kill them in ReBoot because he hated being held to that standard.”
Mainframe grew beyond its origins into a powerhouse animation studio producing numerous CG series and direct-to-video features starring well-known characters from Spider-Man to Barbie. Rick Mischel, the studio’s current ceo compares those early days (before he joined the company) to today’s animation scene. “ReBoot was quite an achievement at its time, both technically and creative. The cost differential [between the series and conventional animation] back then was probably 30-40%. It was much more expensive than today because of the cost of technology then. But the whole model was different then, licensing fees were five times higher. With a bigger budget and longer timelines you could afford to do a show like ReBoot. These days thankfully, technology caught up with medium. Between faster rendering time and better software packages you can now produce a CG show in the same time as a 2D one.”
The Disney Channel is most committed to CG of any cable channel, going back to its highly successful 1998 series, Rolie Polie Olie: three of its preschool Playhouse Disney shows are CG with a fourth in the works, as are two series on companion channel Toon Disney.
While CG and 2D production schedules may have fallen more in line, it still costs more to do a show in three dimensions. Meredith Metz, svp of creative affairs at Disney’s TV animation division estimates that a CG show costs 25% more to produce than a comparative 2D show. Nancy Kantor, Disney Channel’s svp of original programming, sees production costs for the two different techniques merging. “I think it’s all coming closer together. CG costs are down, Flash in some ways is going up, because it’s beginning to approach what you can do in 2D. We don’t find the cost differentials to be wildly different.”
“You’re juggling any number of factors, including your financial limitations,” says Disney vp Mike Moon, who oversees both the channel and the TV animation division. “A CG show that introduces new characters, locations every week isn’t one any studio would want to produce. The cost of setting up new characters or environments has to be amortized across an entire series.”
Carefully structuring those elements is one way to keep a CG series’ budget within haling distance of a 2D one. “We might limit the number of models or additional characters at first,” Kantor explains. “Once you’ve built that library, you can add to it later on. In a second season you can quickly get up to where you want.”
The Disney’s Channel’s commitment to 3D CG animation is strongest in its preschool Playhouse Disney block, with three series currently on air — Handy Manny is a production of Nelvana Ltd., Higglytown Heroes is a production of Wild Brain and both are produced in association with Disney Channel while Mickey Mouse Clubhouse is produced in-house. A second in-house effort starring two more of Disney’s (in Meredith Metz’s words) “fabulous five core characters, Winnie the Pooh and Tigger is in the works and due for a fall ‘07 premiere.
Preschool-targeted CG has a particular appeal to its audience, but comes with its own set of drawbacks. According to Kantor, “CG works really well with preschoolers because it’s a fully dimensionalized world. It’s very real — it’s tangible, approachable. You can also get textures in CG like a soft fuzzy, stuffed animal look that makes the characters feel more like playthings.” However, Metz admits the process can also be “very, very tricky. A lot of R&D went into those two shows, with special attention to the warmth of these characters. For preschoolers, you want to make sure they don’t look scary with glass eyes.
“These shows usually have slower pacing to engage preschoolers,” she adds. “They don’t move too fast. Longer scenes take longer to render. If you want to tweak something small, it might turn into a three-day render. We’ve had to direct differently and add more cuts. It’s something that doesn’t impact our Flash shows.”
Toon Disney’s Jetix action/adventure block features two fully-CG series, Get Ed and Dragon Booster along with Oban Star Racers, a 2D/3D hybrid. “You’re going to see more CG filtering its way onto Disney Channel,” promises Moon, pointing to the channel’s recently launched Shorty McShort’s Shorts block. “They’re all try-outs for series and several of them are CG. We’re also developing an original movie that may be done in CG.”
CG’s toughest challenge may be recreating classic 2D characters in three dimensions for new projects. “If it’s a character people know,” Metz cautions, “it’s a great scaffolding from which you can fall.” Everyone’s familiar with Mickey Mouse’s round ears and how they remain circles no matter which direction he faces. “Recreating that was a huge challenge actually,” Kantor admits. “We had some funny misses trying to make sure you didn’t see his ears constantly revolving around his head. We had to really work to get same effect as in 2D.”
Kantor says the decision to CG-ize Mickey and his pals was to “have it feel like a fresh, more contemporary show. We thought if we could feel true to the essence of Mickey’s character and make it consistent with his past it would be very exciting for us to do. It took us a long time, but we were successful. Kids recognize him immediately as the same Mickey they’ve seen before.”
Done wrong, a 2D-to-3D upgrade can leave familiar characters looking and moving like lifeless automatons. Mischel of Mainframe (where CG versions of Popeye, Casper and Inspector Gadget were created) bases the potential for success on the degree to which a character springs from a fantasy background. “Some shows aren’t appropriate for CG. It’s hard to imagine The Simpsons in 3D.” (Mischel may have missed the show’s 1995 Halloween episode spoofing CG animation.) “The more it’s set in a familiar world, the less likely you’d produce it in CG. SpongeBob is very cartoony and could be in CG, but it wouldn’t have the same feel. Part of its humor is the simplicity of its animation — you don’t want the richness of CG to distract from its comedy. Inspector Gadget looked great in CG. When you have the fantasy element of things springing out of his coat, it’s a great device for CG.”
While they’re growing in number, no one seems to be rushing to do a CG show simply to have a CG show on their channel. Like his fellow executives, Eric Coleman, Nickelodeon’s vp of animation development and production, talks about choosing the medium that “brings a creator’s vision alive in the most effective way possible. For example, we used anime-style 2D for Avatar and Flash for El Tigre to give it the look of Mexican folk art.” With three seasons of Jimmy Neutron under the channel’s belt, Nick’s upcoming CG shows include Steve Oedekerk’s feature film spin-off Barnyard [8] and the videogame based Tak and the Power of Juju.
The disinterest in doing a CG show for its own sake is reflected in the fact that shows pitched as 3D projects can wind up in 2D and vice-versa. PBS Kids’ Linda Simensky (who has two CG projects in the works) describes a pitch she received for a 2D show featuring animal characters. “I looked at it and said it feels like should be a 3D project. The producer admitted his first partner really pushed it to be 2D, he was more comfortable with it that way. When he left they immediately switched to 3D. I’d never worked on a show that switched styles in midstream either. I actually think it looks more interesting, works much better as a 3D show.”
Disney’s Kantor says the 2D/3D decision is in large part based on “trying to imagine how character best comes to life. Some projects like Charlie and Lola were originally picture books so they already have an established style. We wanted to capture that style so we never thought of translating it into a 3D image. Then again, the characters in Handy Mandy originally had a storybook look to them — its original creators were picture book illustrators.
“Manny is a fixit guy with a toolbox of talking tools. We felt we needed the tools to really seem alive. It’s much easier to do that in CG, where they would have a lot more movement and we could move the camera a lot more than in 2D. We tested out a lot of different styles and studios before Nelvana came up with a really good translation of the look. It’s true to the creators’ intentions while giving them something that pops a little bit more.”
At the moment, Cartoon Network’s only CG shows are a pair of acquisitions, the hybrid Code Lyoko and Transformers Cybertron. However, svp of programming and development Bob Higgins is looking at a CG show currently in the works from Billy and Mandy creator Maxwell Atoms. “Typically, we give our creators not complete freedom — we have to make sure their shows are directed toward our audience — but we don’t dictate their look. If Maxwell makes a pilot and we go ‘you showed us, it’s fantastic,’ then we’ll make a CG show. If it looks funky or we test it and it feels wrong, we’ll end up just not making it, because the whole isn’t working — not just the methodology by which it’s animated.”
The choice may also be based on whether a show is action or comedy oriented. A decade ago replicating reality was the goal in CG animation. “The idea of an affordable computer-animated series seemed kind of fantastical back then,” Simensky recalls, “and making one that was funny seemed way off. At that point a lot of it was used for action, hard-edged things. We weren’t at the point where you could do squash and stretch, funny animation or warm and cuddly characters.”
Since then, increasingly sophisticated software has made it easier to create and animate more fanciful characters. Still, Disney’s Moon feels that while “CG does action beautifully, comedy in CG is more a balancing act. A lot of shows are better served in Flash where it’s easier to get the snappy timing and scene cutting of traditional 2D. Ying Yang Yo! is a perfect example — Flash is absolutely the right tool for that show. But I think as people become more comfortable with CG, we’ll see it get more stylized. That for me is what helps the jokes play, that creates that great suspension of disbelief. It’s exciting because the more realistic it is, the less you can buy the world. It becomes crucial that it every detail is correct. If you set up a world that is very cartoonish and flat, you can make that leap a lot easier. What 3d does for us, gives us another arena to play in. It helps mix up, balance and dimensionalize what we have on air.”
While the percentage of CG shows on Cartoon, Nick and Disney is gradually increasing, none of them are interested in following the lead of theatrical animation producers and throwing 2D to the wolves. However, Playhouse Disney’s Kantor predicts that in a few years 25-30% of her schedule will consist of CG shows, while at PBS, Simensky foresees “TV migrating into a mixed media universe where you’re going to see a little bit of everything, even in single shows.”
From Mischel’s perspective at Mainframe, economics will lead the way toward more CG series. “As the technology becomes more affordable, you’ll get the perfect storm where the cost differential between 2D and 3D shows disappears. The differential between Flash and CG is now between 15-20%. When you can produce either for exactly same money, more companies will create more CG products. It’s all kind of a domino effect. You don’t have as many CG projects out there, so you don’t see as many on TV because there aren’t a lot to choose from.”
If anyone has the right to be jaded over computer animation, it would have to be Cartoon Network’s Higgins who, by his own estimate, has waded through, “hundreds of CG shows a year from around the world, most of which have never crossed the U.S. border.”
Freshly back from screening even more potential acquisitions at MIPCOM Jr., Higgins only allows that, “a couple of things look interesting, some of which may be CG.” Ever the optimist, he admits, “we know it’s something we don’t have. If we find one we’re going to be really excited.”
Joe Strike is a regular contributor to AWN. His animation articles also appear in the NY Daily News and the New York Press.
Links:
[1] http://www.awn.com/imagepicker/image/11775
[2] http://mag.awn.com/index.php?article_no=2052
[3] http://vfxworld.com/?sa=adv&code=1e242f07&atype=articles&id=2213
[4] http://www.awn.com/imagepicker/image/11776
[5] http://www.awn.com/imagepicker/image/11777
[6] http://www.awn.com/imagepicker/image/11778
[7] http://www.awn.com/imagepicker/image/11779
[8] http://mag.awn.com/index.php?article_no=2965
[9] http://www.awn.com/imagepicker/image/11780
[10] http://www.awn.com/imagepicker/image/11781
