Pixar going 2D? [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

the squirrel

Dec 7, 2003, 06:37 PM

I was told just last week this same rummor only it came from a very respected expert on the industry who actually trains people at all the major studios, Dreamworks, Disney and pixar. He said that dreamworks have sold all there animating desks and light boxs at an auction as they have publicly announced they arn't making any more 2d movies. Pixar apparently bought most of these tables. And as for pixar disney relationship, pixar have been dying to get out for years i think, the pixar logo holds far more than disneys, Jobs managed to negotiate the most spectacular deal with disney for the five movies, Jobs has disney wrapped round his finger, he can either stay and get anything he wants or leave and put disney in the shadow, i think option 2 is what will happen. Jobs just wants to prove to disney its not the technique you use its the story. and i believe it will be a huge success. There are no large 2d films in production, pixar will grab the market

cesar

Dec 7, 2003, 07:25 PM

hey, do you mean like cartoons? I just know it was becuase of Pixar that disnay bring to America "Spirited Away"

MrMacMan

Dec 7, 2003, 08:44 PM

Ok, I guess its faster to make...

Lets hope Pixar does 2D right.

agreenster

Dec 7, 2003, 08:57 PM

If anyone can do it, Pixar can.

I'm just dying to find out who they will be distributing with after the deal w/ Disney is up. Its interesting to hear the rumor that Dreamworks auctioned their equipment and Pixar bought it. Wonder if thats true?

But hey, artists are artists no matter if they are using a computer or pencil to do it.

ITR 81

Dec 7, 2003, 09:27 PM

Pixar only owes Disney one more film. So "The Incredibles" will be the last Pixar movie for Disney in Nov of 04'. I guess by then we should all know if Pixar is going out on it's own or if it will stay with Disney or be contracted to other studio's.

chewbaccapits

Dec 7, 2003, 09:35 PM

Story...Story...Story....Regardless if its traditional 2-D animation or CG films ....Story drives the film.....
It makes sense for Pixar to release films in 2-D in the near future because Disney (can you believe it!) and Dreamworks are pulling the plug on traditional (hand drawn) animation. Pixar can and will be a successful animation juggernaut in years to come.

g4pismo

Dec 7, 2003, 10:19 PM

Spot on chewbaccapits! I think the problem with a lot of the crap these days, is the need for flash rather than content. The have the new, cool technique or effect and /force/ it into a story that really could be told without the extra embellishments.. (i.e. bullet time in laundry detergent commercials)

Dahl

Dec 7, 2003, 10:20 PM

While Pixar might dislike their current deal with Disney, I think they would like to stay with them, if they get a better deal ( similar to what Lucas have with Fox )

Dahl

Dec 7, 2003, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by chewbaccapits
Disney (can you believe it!) and Dreamworks are pulling the plug on traditional (hand drawn) animation.
I don't think what entirely true about Disney, as far as I know they have no plans of stopping their 2D production, they might just make less movies.
Their TV production is primary 2D and they are making very good $ right now.

WOpro

Dec 7, 2003, 10:42 PM

I am a Disney Employee. Recently all of our 2D animation staff were told they their department was being shutdown. All the staff were trained in the new 3D tools, those who did not make the grade got an invitation to leave. Most of the staff were given several weeks off pending the official cut.

Shortly before the Thanksgiving holiday
Pixar and Dreamworks staff setup temporary office space here in Orlando; they dissected the phone list of the animation department, and called anyone who was getting laid off in for an interview. Its looks as if they got the pick of the crop, as some really fine people were being let go.

Last week, a friend who was interview let me know that she had a) accepted a position with Pixar, and b) that Pixar would shortly be announcing that they were opening a 2D studio.

I would not be the least bit surprised by this news, or the Pixar / Disney deal NOT getting re-signed.

To set the record straight for a previous poster, Pixar will be release 2 more films under the Disney banner. The Incredibles and Cars, both of which are currently In Production. If you are keeping count, the sequels do not count per the original contract.

etoiles

Dec 8, 2003, 12:16 AM

Thanks WOpro for all that info. Hope you are doing ok job/career wise. Are you an animator ?

What strikes me is how Disney seems to have lost any sense of direction in their animation divisions. After the success of Pixar, they seem to think that the key is 3D and decide to stop making 2D movies. Now Pixar is starting a 2D studio... that must hurt. But at least it is great news for all animators out there.

I am a 3D artist, but 3D for 3D's sake is just ridiculous. Good to see that some big studios still have a vision.

SiliconAddict

Dec 8, 2003, 02:08 AM

Disney has basically decided that 2D is dead to the horror of many. I swear Eisner is the worst thing to ever happen to that company. Apparently the share holders agree since there is a very large lawsuit again Eisner and the BoD. I can now fully understand why Roy Disney got the heck out of dodge before the fhit hit the san.

As for the 2D vs. 3D thing. Please. Both have their time and place. Well done 2D can be a fantastic experience. 3D also has its place but it can be overdone and I've seen too much 3D crap override the story. OOOO pretty graphics. Great where's the story?!?!

Some of Disney’s classics are easily on par with any current Disney/Pixar work in terms of story. The animation work is starting to show its age but just last Wednesday I did a Disney marathon with Robin Hood, Lion King, Little Mermaid and they were just as enjoyable as Toy Story/Nemo/etc. (Which I also own.)

Disney seems to believe that 3D is what will sell a movie in the future. They seem to have forgotten that it’s the STORY that sells a movie. Animation method be damned. If Pixar is going 2D I say more power to em.

JayBee

Dec 8, 2003, 07:12 AM

Yeah, and colour movies are better than black and white, right?

People - Pixar's big selling point for me has hardly EVER been the 3d animation. It's the fact that when I see a Pixar movie, I know three things:

1) I'll laugh my ass off
2) It will have a great, great story with enough kiddie humour to keep it a U rated film, but enough grown up geeky head-nods to the kids who grew up with ET and StarWars to keep me chuckling.
3) There will be NO FORCED CHARACTER SINGING.

Compare and contrast with Disney-sans-Pixar, who consistently give me none of the above.

Pixar going 2d can only be good news for 2d artists everywhere. There's a mass of room for excellent 2d animation, and frankly Disney needs the competition if it's going to be anything less than complacent and staid. Remember Don Bluth Studios? Possibly one of the best things that ever happened to Disney - kept them on their toes.

If Disney shuts down 2d and loses Pixar, what's it going to do, aside from throw masses and masses of cash at bad 40s-style musicals rendered in glorious 3dovision?

Disney will ownz, as ever, but it's going to take a pounding from Pixar in the next decade.

Given that, can anyone now see Jobs stepping in at Disney?

WOpro

Dec 8, 2003, 08:26 AM

Actually, there is a rumour circulating that Roy Disney is planning on divesting himself of all of his Disney stock. If Steve were to buy it, we would see the biggest pssing match in corporate history, as Roy owns about the same % of the company as Eisner does...

I personally would love to see the two of them go toe to toe; but not an the expense of Apple (they seem to be doing well again with Steve at the helm)

For whoever asked about my career, I am not an animator, and I am doing well thanks!

Someone perviously mentioned the early Disney movies being about Good Stories. You are absolutely correct. However, look at those early stories (Cinderella, etc). None of them were written by the Disney Marketing Department. They were either fariy tales, or classics of literature. Now please compare and contrast with Beauty and The Beast 6: Direct To Home Video.

MongoTheGeek

Dec 8, 2003, 09:10 AM

yamabushi

Dec 8, 2003, 09:29 AM

I fully realized how stupid Disney has been under Eisner a few years ago when they bought out three successful local radio stations and promptly destroyed them. They changed the playlists, talent and focus of each of them to insure their failure. One was Radio AAHS, an award winning childrens programming station that was the favorite of all parents I know. It was changed to Radio Disney and now is unpopular with both kids and parents. I used to listen to another station, REV 105, over twelve hours each day because it was simply that great. After Disney bought it they again dropped the playlist and the DJs with disastrous results. I hardly ever listen to the radio anymore. Most local stations have either very short or uninspired playlists. :( This debacle was apparently repeated across the US with dozens of stations. Disney had lost several hundred million dollars from these takeovers last I checked. This was a loss for both radio listeners and Disney shareholders.

Kid Red

Dec 8, 2003, 12:17 PM

Well, I for one am not as thrilled as some seem to be about Pixar going flat. I can;t think of many 2D (american) movies recently that rocked. THat horse movie sucked, the pirate sinbad movie sucked, that little bear cub movie sucked, and even Pocahantas sucked. Pixar made cartoons rock by making them animated. CGI is the future and not all 2D cartoon styles are interesting. Lion King was OK, but I hated the soft airbrushed feel on everything and I haven't seen a goo US cartoon in I'm not sure how long. Metropolis was kinds OK, not sure I like the 2D characters with 3D backgrounds, doesn't work right, they look pieced together. Besides, Metropolis wasn't american IIRC. <Iron Giant was the last great 2D movie>

My question is, will the 2D style be flat Disney, (no shadows), Lion King style (shadows are all soft airbrush) or anime style (shadows are hard edged) Pixar is awesome in it's realism, so I'm not sure I'll like the 2D style if it's flat.

drayab

Dec 8, 2003, 12:44 PM

Disney is very much still in pursuit of 2D feature films. Using 3D design tools and advanced cell shading renderers, one can achieve spectacular 2D style results. This is where I believe Dreamworks, Pixar, and Disney are going with 2D animation. Pixar's rendering engine, Renderman is definitely getting some advanced cell shading features. We'll see what happens. I also think Pixar does want to stay with Disney and that Disney will give Pixar the deal they want when the time comes.

Dahl

Dec 8, 2003, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by drayab
Disney is very much still in pursuit of 2D feature films. Using 3D design tools and advanced cell shading renderers, one can achieve spectacular 2D style results. This is where I believe Dreamworks, Pixar, and Disney are going with 2D animation. Pixar's rendering engine, Renderman is definitely getting some advanced cell shading features. We'll see what happens. I also think Pixar does want to stay with Disney and that Disney will give Pixar the deal they want when the time comes.
I agree!

agreenster

Dec 8, 2003, 02:06 PM

Im reading this thread wondering why everyone is arguing CGI vs. Story. Everyone (well, nearly) agrees that story is king, regardless of the look. I think we can all agree on that.

Good for Pixar for hiring the traditional animators from Disney. I would hate to see these talented people out of work.

As if Pixar wasn't the most creative place in the world before...

EDIT

Also, if this is all true, I think there are several possibilities to explain it:

1) Pixar wanted more animators and were willing to train ex-Disney 2D artists because they know that animators can easily be trained on the computer

2) Pixar really is opening a 2D department for feature film.

3) The aforementioned 2D department would be around not for feature film, but maybe a specialty department. Cleanup, or maybe television production, etc. maybe Pixar is moving into different mediums of entertainment, along with feature film.

Hey, just random thoughts. But I read their annual reports most years and they have never mentioned deviating from CG for feature film. (they seem to have a CG roadmap for the next 5 years) Maybe they think they can pump out 2 movies a year, one 2D and one 3D? My head is spinning with possibilities. I still think #1 is probably the most accurate.

rjfiske

Dec 8, 2003, 02:19 PM

First time I've ever posted to this site. Figures it would be a non-Mac issue.

Look is VERY MUCH part of the success of the movie. Is it more important than story? No it is a part of the story. Beauty & The Beast used 3-D computer imaging during the dance scene. Why? Because it added to the story. View the "making-of" documentary of "Finding Nemo". The Pixar animators were constantly tweaking the look of each of the scenes to make them more perfect. Why? Because it added to the story.

The look is not independant to the story, it is an element of it. Finding Nemo in 2D would have been vastly different in emotional impact than the Finding Nemo we're used to. I'm not one ot say whether it would have been better or worse, but I'm sure it would have been different. And that's what I think Pixar has in store.

I believe that Pixar wants a new, fresh element to tell their stories (new and fresh to Pixar that is). The humor, the appealing to the adults, etc. will still be there. But now if the rumor is true, they will have a different way of adding to the flavor of the movies that they have up their sleeve.
- rjfiske

agreenster

Dec 8, 2003, 03:20 PM

I agree that look is important.

What I said was story was MORE important.

rjfiske

Dec 8, 2003, 03:33 PM

What you said was: "Everyone (well, nearly) agrees that story is king, regardless of the look. I think we can all agree on that."

Story is NOT king regardless of the look (in my opinion). Story is king thanks to many things, including the look. I think we're in agreement overall that a look by itself is nothing. My point is that the look is VERY important to the story. They are not two seperate entities... just as soundtrack is not completely seperate to the movie, but rather an element of it.

mayaLuvr

Dec 8, 2003, 03:36 PM

Im an Animator by trade (3D and 2D Motion Designer) and would love to see what Pixar can do with 2D.
Its all about the story anyway!
Just to clarify, I think Disney gets the sequel rights to Toy Story, A Bugs Life, Monster Inc and Finding Nemo. Even after the 5 picture deal expires.
I read this in Time magazine (I think?).
As far as finding the right people for the 2D part, most of the original bunch hired at Pixar came from the cel world.
Im sure they didnt forget how to draw:O)

rueyeet

Dec 8, 2003, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by WOpro
Someone perviously mentioned the early Disney movies being about Good Stories. You are absolutely correct. However, look at those early stories (Cinderella, etc). None of them were written by the Disney Marketing Department.

That's hit the nail on the head, right there.

Disney has become a place where creativity is second to marketability. Their stuff has become formulaic, a constant attempt to re-create their earlier successes. Since Disney's triumphant three-fold return to animated features (The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and The Lion King) nothing they've made has really stepped out of that mold. Even Lilo & Stitch, their most risk-taking offering of the new era, is centered around a politically correct, market-ready endorsement of family values; and even its edginess is carefully tailored to the perceived market. Worse, that's what it feels like when you're watching it.

Pixar, on the other hand, is still creative, and is less about what will fly in the boardroom than about what will be a great story. If you use each medium--either 3-D or 2-D--to its best effect, and understand the differences between them, either one can be used to make something worth watching. Personally, I think that the addition of a 2-D department to a company like Pixar is the only way there'll be any decent American-made 2-D animation.

SiliconAddict

Dec 8, 2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Kid Red
Well, I for one am not as thrilled as some seem to be about Pixar going flat. I can;t think of many 2D (american) movies recently that rocked. THat horse movie sucked, the pirate sinbad movie sucked, that little bear cub movie sucked, and even Pocahantas sucked. Pixar made cartoons rock by making them animated. CGI is the future and not all 2D cartoon styles are interesting.

Ya and it was adding that third dimension is what has made every 3D movie good. :rolleyes: Oh wait. No it was it was the story and the fact that most 3D movies have come from Pixar.
You want an example of a crap 3D movie??!!? Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. Mmmmm craptastic. Most expensive animated movie ever made. It sucks plotwise (I challenge you to find a review that focus on the plot more then the eye candy.), did poor in the Box Office (Somewhere in the 40th grossing movie of the year I think.), and is right up there with Water World in the biggest-flops-in-motion-picture-history category.
Heck I think Square sunk so much $$$ into it that they had to get bailed out by Sony and even then Square axed any future plans for any type of movie.
But on the plus side it was 3D :rolleyes: and beautifully rendered so it has its pluses.

etoiles

Dec 8, 2003, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by SiliconAddict

But on the plus side it was 3D :rolleyes: and beautifully rendered so it has its pluses.

FF was a big expensive joke. Unbelievable... it cracks me up how one of the guys in charge said: "you really need to look at Aki's hair, we are really proud of that" (or somehting like that). I think it beautifully sums up the whole movie... :D

chewbaccapits

Dec 8, 2003, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Dahl
I don't think what entirely true about Disney, as far as I know they have no plans of stopping their 2D production, they might just make less movies.
Their TV production is primary 2D and they are making very good $ right now.

I believe my point has been verified but read checkthis site out..... (http://www.mouseplanet.com/david/dk030814.htm)...Honestly, I wish I was incorrect...But if it takes DISNEY to fall flat on their face to realize how retarded they've been..Then I'm all for it....

ThomasJefferson

Dec 8, 2003, 08:47 PM

Time to buy some stock folks. If you have the spare change ...

Dahl

Dec 8, 2003, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by chewbaccapits
I believe my point has been verified but read checkthis site out..... (http://www.mouseplanet.com/david/dk030814.htm)...Honestly, I wish I was incorrect...But if it takes DISNEY to fall flat on their face to realize how retarded they've been..Then I'm all for it....
There was a large story in L.A. Times no less than a week or two ago about Disney's animated TV shows. How those shows are one of the few bright spots they have going right now. I know it's not features, but it's still 2D animation.

I wish I could find the story, it must be in L.A. Times online achive, but I haven't been able to find it.

Frohickey

Dec 8, 2003, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by chewbaccapits
Story...Story...Story....Regardless if its traditional 2-D animation or CG films ....Story drives the film.....
It makes sense for Pixar to release films in 2-D in the near future because Disney (can you believe it!) and Dreamworks are pulling the plug on traditional (hand drawn) animation. Pixar can and will be a successful animation juggernaut in years to come.

Someone needs to tell this to George Lucas.

The last 4 Star Wars movies just stank! Peeeyuuuu!!!

miya

Dec 9, 2003, 03:40 AM

I'd like to be as optimistic as posters here are about Pixar putting story on top of priorities. I actually think that Finding Nemo has a poor story with excellent looks. It was kinda Lion King with fish... It wasn't as bad as Spirit and its Bush-like discourse, but, still, it's moralistic, and the main characters were completely unappealing to me (except the shark and the clueless female fish).

Then I saw the wonderful Spirited Away in DVD and the magic of animation came back...

johnnyjibbs

Dec 9, 2003, 06:18 AM

I liked Lion King. Same story as Bambi, but...:)

yamabushi

Dec 9, 2003, 09:44 AM

I rather liked the FF movie. Not the best story but roughly equal in quality to most animated films. Not even close to the same level as Miyazaki films however.

mrsebastian

Dec 9, 2003, 12:17 PM

since we're all naming names, i personally feel the original jungle book is one of the best. as others have pointed out, it's all about the story and not how slick the animation looks -- look at south park for example.

rjfiske

Dec 9, 2003, 02:54 PM

... it's all about the story and not how slick the animation looks -- look at south park for example.

I'm sorry I just don't agree. The "story" of South Park is successful because (in part, not in all) of its look. The "story" of the Jungle Book was heavily influenced on how it looked at the time. Same for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (it was successful because it had a great story AND a great look... the first multi-plane animated movie). Same for Finding Nemo, which I agree had a mediocre story when compared to, say, Raiders of the Lost Ark. The reason Finding Nemo was so successful (and one of my favorite Pixar movies to date) was because it LOOKED so beautiful. Part of its success is DIRECTLY related to "how slick the animation looked". (It also appealed to adults, had great character development and representation, a powerful score, great humor, etc... the look was one of many factors but it was indeed a factor).

The story is huge, don't get me wrong. But I'm getting the feeling here from the previous posts that story and look are two seperate entities... that it doesn't matter how it looks as long as the story is good. It's my humble opinion that in a movie anyway, story and look go hand-in-hand. Otherwise Finding Nemo would have been a guy on a stool in a white room reading the screenplay (all story, no look). We are after all talking about movies. Movies are visual. Books are based on story only. And I'll say again that the impact of Finding Nemo would have been much different had it been filmed in 2D not 3D.

So back to the topic of the forum, if Pixar is indeed going 2D, it may be because they want a different element when telling their stories of the future.

- rjfiske

Frohickey

Dec 9, 2003, 03:12 PM

Since we are talking about 2D animation... I liked Heavy Metal. :D :D :D

Cappy

Dec 11, 2003, 05:29 AM

I think the thing that people need to open their mind up to here is what is the best short term business move with long term goals for Disney. Sure you can still make good 2d films if the story is there but just like 3d...it has to look good. That is what helps sell the movie initially.

People use FF as an example of a bad 3d movie yet don't want to point out the positives of 3d for it. The 3d is what sold those initial tickets. Yes, the movie sucked(or so I heard) but my point is that you have to see that Disney has to make cuts to appeal to those truly running the show(stockholders) and if it comes down to 2d or 3d then I'm afraid it's going to be 2d. I consider it very similar to those that went from b&w to color. Wakeup people. 2d is yesterdays tech but can still be used effectively at times as a change of pace.

The same thing has happened in the gaming world. 3d sells...2d does not. yes there may be some good 2d games out there still coming out but there are more good 3d games because of consumer demand for it.

The bulk of consumers want to see more 3d shows. It doesn't mean 2d or its tech is gone but that 3d is going to be more dominant. Matter of fact I could see 2d being used in 3d films for things like dreamlike effects or areas where they might want to watch their poly counts and it won't be too noticeable.

desdomg

Dec 12, 2003, 04:40 AM

Simpsons and Futurama look pretty good to me in 2D.

Form and content do go hand in hand - but just as we where all surpised with Blair Witch project going handheld in the age of special effects, there is lots and lots of room for those very creative folks at Pixar to produce some excellent 2D movies or even TV series.

Toy Story cartoons anyone?

Frohickey

Dec 12, 2003, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by desdomg
Simpsons and Futurama look pretty good to me in 2D.

Form and content do go hand in hand - but just as we where all surpised with Blair Witch project going handheld in the age of special effects, there is lots and lots of room for those very creative folks at Pixar to produce some excellent 2D movies or even TV series.

Toy Story cartoons anyone?

I think there is a Buzz Lightyear cartoon already. Don't ask me why I know. ;)