Pixar going 2D?

[agreenster]

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]

Look IS important

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]

I agree that look is important.

What I said was story was MORE important.

 

[rjfiske]

clarification

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]

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]

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]

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. 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 and beautifully rendered so it has its pluses.

 

[etoiles]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict

But on the plus side it was 3D 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...

 

[chewbaccapits]

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........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]

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

 

[Dahl]

Originally posted by chewbaccapits
I believe my point has been verified but read checkthis site out........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]

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]

pixar losing the story part?

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]

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

 

[yamabushi]

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]

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]

... 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]

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

 

[Cappy]

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]

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]

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.