Will Disney ever make another 2D Animated Film?

Spurlock

New member
To be fair, in the past, my schools have put on plays for Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast which I was forced to watch, so you could say I've seen those too.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Finn said:
...but could be it's just another reminder of the sad fact that we've become older than we'd like.

Could be just a question of taste.

I don't think I've seen any of the 2D films mentioned in this thread. Certainly not more than a few minutes from any of them.

The Fox and the Hound was on TV the other night. The backgrounds were nice, but the action in front of them became so sickly, sugary sweet that I couldn't bear it any more. After five minutes I switched it off.

kongisking said:
Pinocchio

If I want to watch a version of Pinocchio I'll put on the DVD of the Spielberg/Aldiss A.I. :p
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Spurlock said:
To be fair, in the past, my schools have put on plays for Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast which I was forced to watch, so you could say I've seen those too.
As in stage plays? If so, given how said stories are really public domain fairy tales that are hundreds of years old, that's hardly the same thing. And even if they'd be inspired by the Disney flicks, they'd still be nothing but adaptations. It'd be like suggesting you've seen the Seven Samurai after watching the Magnificent Seven.

Now, while Monty did actually give a rather good reason for not seeing those pieces before, I still feel a rather strong urge to slap you a bit for this particular suggestion.


Now, I'm not sure if they would be fully akin to my current tastes anymore either, but it is pretty hard to find a person of my age who hasn't grown up watching these as a kid. Of course, it could be said that we grew up watching these, the current youth is growing up watching the computer animated pieces. Though I still wonder, because I recall seeing all of them starting from Snow White - which is from 1937(!) all the way through to the Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin. So if something that was 50 years old back then was still rather fresh to us, why something that's 30 years old now is such a strange thing to some of the modern kids?
 

russds

New member
Interesting topic, I've read much about already. I simply love animation, and have all my life. Regarding 2D hand drawn animation continuing, I think it boils down to kids' view of 2D movies. I think it's much the same as us adults watching black and white movies/shows. Sure, the bottom line is a good story, characters, music, etc, and there may be artistic reasons to do black and white (Schindler's list, The Artist, Paperman, etc.) but kids' eyes demand more now. I already see it in my sons eyes when we decide to watch a movie:
Beauty and the Beast - "this is old dad, it looks different, it looks old"
Toy Story 3 - "Ok, this is a movie, this is what i'm used to".

I love Pinocchio, and Dumbo, and Beauty and the Beast, and on and on, and am floored at what animation artists did with simple pen and paper. But to be honest, when I watch Tangled, or Wall-e, or any other top notch animation film, I almost want to see those old classics redone in 3D animation (I'll pause for the gasp from 2D purists :) )....Yes, keep the same awesome story, the same music, the same scenes even, but my eyes, and most definitely my kids eyes want more now.

The same happened to black and white...I think the same thing will happen to hand drawn animation.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
russds said:
Interesting topic, I've read much about already. I simply love animation, and have all my life. Regarding 2D hand drawn animation continuing, I think it boils down to kids' view of 2D movies. I think it's much the same as us adults watching black and white movies/shows. Sure, the bottom line is a good story, characters, music, etc, and there may be artistic reasons to do black and white (Schindler's list, The Artist, Paperman, etc.) but kids' eyes demand more now. I already see it in my sons eyes when we decide to watch a movie:
Beauty and the Beast - "this is old dad, it looks different, it looks old"
Toy Story 3 - "Ok, this is a movie, this is what i'm used to".

Geez, that's depressing. The black & white limitation that people have is a heck of a lot worse, of course, but this one never even occurred to me as possible. How does he feel about Beauty and the Beast as time goes on?
 

russds

New member
It can be depressing for purists I guess, but it's the life cycle of art I suppose, and it's natural. The same reason we don't generally watch black and white, or listen to phonograph quality recordings with scratching and hissing, or 'accept' 50's style special effects. Every once in a while some technology comes a long that sets the "bar" in our eyes and ears higher:
The Wizard of Oz, Cassette tapes, CDs, Jurassic Park, Forrest Gump, Toy Story, Tangled, Etc.

I think people have a particular soft spot for animation because Disney's early classics were pretty much the first of that particular medium. Animation before that was pretty small scale until Snow White, and then you have the typical 2d animation pretty much up until Toy Story, which I think started the "new" animation cycle. In 20 years, I can almost guaranty there will be plenty of 3D CG movies coming out, and maybe 1 traditional hand drawn artsy movie that's up for an academy award for it's use of "Classic animation" styles. :)
 

russds

New member
Attila the Professor said:
The black & white limitation that people have is a heck of a lot worse, of course

I think the limitation people have for 2d animation will get worse in time.

Attila the Professor said:
How does he feel about Beauty and the Beast as time goes on?

This will be interesting to see, and something I watch regularly. Currently he's 5, and his preference is obviously 3d cg. I can almost see his eyes and brain craving for more when I put on a traditional 2d animation movie. I'm curious too how he will feel about classics like BatB, or The Lion King as he gets older. I would imagine he would have the same appreciation i do of classics like Casablanca, or The Wizard of Oz: Great story telling and acting, but my eyes are used to more. :)
 

Montana Smith

Active member
russds said:
... but my eyes are used to more. :)

I'd much rather watch the wonderful 2D classic Tom & Jerry shorts.

All ten discs. Non-stop!

Tom-Jerry-tom-and-jerry-31793703-400-300.jpg
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
I think the comparison between CGI and hand drawn animation on one side and color and black & white on the other is not very apt.

First of all, the difference in them is based on two different kinds of psychological perceptions. People prefer color to black & white because color looks more lifelike. However, the shapes and characters in animation are about as much caricaturistic whether they're hand drawn or computer generated, and they both can be used to create as fluid illusion of movement and depth. So if we prefer one or the other, it's simply because the other looks different to what we're used to.

The kid may complain it looks "old", but it's only old in the sense that it's not being done much anymore. It's not "old" because the technology is superior. The end results of both methods can certainly look equally lifelike.


And I happen to know a perfect method to try this particular one out: Stop motion animation. The dolls used to make them certainly look eerily familiar to modern CGI animation, despite the method being actually even *older* than hand drawn. I grew up in a place that was mostly west, but also little parts east. That means we did have all the newest Disney, Don Bluth and other stuff coming from west, but also a bit of the stop motion dolls that were popular form of children's entertainment behind the Iron Curtain. And I recall being always a bit creeped out by the latter. I now recognize that it certainly was not due to thinking one is more antiquated, but simply because it looked so alien as opposed to the big western hits.

So... if you have kids, try showing them Wallace & Gromit, Chicken Run or some similar film, and see if they complain it looking "old".
 

Spurlock

New member
Yikes, didn't know some felt so strongly about 2D animation. I mean, what am i supposed to do? I was a boy with an older brother. When would anyone suggest watching movies with princesses and singing?

And to anyone concerned with these movies no longer impacting people, have no fear. For my Spirit Week this year, 2/4 grades chose 2D Disney Animation films as their themes. It was "Under the Seaniors" and my class was Junior Genies. I can also report that there was so much love and affection for these films among even kids of our age (not from me particularly).
 

Forbidden Eye

Well-known member
Montana Smith said:
Could be just a question of taste.

I don't think I've seen any of the 2D films mentioned in this thread. Certainly not more than a few minutes from any of them.

The Fox and the Hound was on TV the other night. The backgrounds were nice, but the action in front of them became so sickly, sugary sweet that I couldn't bear it any more. After five minutes I switched it

It feels weird to actually have to recommend Disney movies to someone, but I say watch Disney's first five movies(Snow White-Bambi) these are universally regarded as Disney's best and are worth watching for a better understanding of pop-culture, and are hugely entertaining on their own right. If you somehow don't enjoy at least one of those films, you have my ok to quit(not to say you wouldn't enjoy more modern films like Aladdin or The Lion King).

The Fox And The Hound is widely regarded as middle-of-the-road to mediocre, so don't judge all of Disney on that one.

Finn said:
So if something that was 50 years old back then was still rather fresh to us, why something that's 30 years old now is such a strange thing to some of the modern kids?

The Internet having made children more close-minded is as good a theory as any.

russds said:
I already see it in my sons eyes when we decide to watch a movie:
Beauty and the Beast - "this is old dad, it looks different, it looks old"
Toy Story 3 - "Ok, this is a movie, this is what i'm used to".

Just when you've thought you've read of everything from the Internet, a thread like this comes and surprises you again and again.

To echo Attila, that is depressing. (n) There will always of course be people like us who find enjoyment in them(like there are still people who enjoy some black and white films), but...only a couple years ago, The Lion King 3D made box office records by almost reaching $100 million, so it's hard for me to believe that "kids today" could be threw with these films quite yet(if ever).

Spurlock said:
Yikes, didn't know some felt so strongly about 2D animation. I mean, what am i supposed to do? I was a boy with an older brother. When would anyone suggest watching movies with princesses and singing?

That's an...interesting excuse. Didn't think older relatives could have that much influence over us.

Even more intriguing is that you generalize them as "princess" films seeing how the majority of their films are either about talking animals or male-centered stories like Pinocchio or Peter Pan. I think that speaks more about Disney's petty marketing than anything else. They've struggled with the stamina of being "just for kids" for a while now, but in recent years, thanks to all the crappy princess merchandise, they've ended up getting a reputation for being "for girls". Disney's hopes for a larger young male audience was likely a big motivational factor for the Marvel and Lucasfilm acquisitions.
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
Forbidden Eye said:
It feels weird to actually have to recommend Disney movies to someone, but I say watch Disney's first five movies(Snow White-Bambi) these are universally regarded as Disney's best and are worth watching for a better understanding of pop-culture, and are hugely entertaining on their own right. If you somehow don't enjoy at least one of those films, you have my ok to quit(not to say you wouldn't enjoy more modern films like Aladdin or The Lion King).

I've seen enough clips of these films to know that they're so far down on my things-to-watch list that I doubt I'd live long enough to have to resort to watching them. :D
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Spurlock said:
Yikes, didn't know some felt so strongly about 2D animation. I mean, what am i supposed to do? I was a boy with an older brother. When would anyone suggest watching movies with princesses and singing?
I suggest you google the term "Brony".

But actually, as Forbidden Eye put it...

Forbidden Eye said:
Even more intriguing is that you generalize them as "princess" films seeing how the majority of their films are either about talking animals or male-centered stories like Pinocchio or Peter Pan. I think that speaks more about Disney's petty marketing than anything else. They've struggled with the stamina of being "just for kids" for a while now, but in recent years, thanks to all the crappy princess merchandise, they've ended up getting a reputation for being "for girls". Disney's hopes for a larger young male audience was likely a big motivational factor for the Marvel and Lucasfilm acquisitions.
Indeed. When take a closer look at Disney's full-feature animated lineup, you noticed that there are plenty of pieces that could be hardly be regarded as nothing more than healthy, classic adventure romps that don't just possess a thing or two a male viewer can enjoy, but are more or less made with them in mind. There's The Sword in the Stone, Jungle Book, Robin Hood, The Black Cauldron, The Great Mouse Detective, Aladdin, The Lion King, Hercules and Tarzan, and I might even have missed some. Even if you look only at their names and try to work out what they're about, it would feel kind of peculiar to figure that they're simply about "princesses and singing".

Okay, many an adult arguably must find their inner child to enjoy them, given how they're still made with people of all ages in mind, but there certainly is no stigma or shame associated with liking 'em. If I ever come across a female who's dim enough to actually want to breed with me, it kind of warms the heart that there's stuff I can show my offspring and enjoy for reasons other than just spending time with them (which of course, as I hear many parents say, is a reason good enough in itself).


If there's one thing Disney's good at, it's creating entertainment that literally fit for "all ages" - even before their recent acquisitions. A good example is the main line of comic books located in their mouse and duck universe(s). While you can safely give a mag like that to the hands of a four-year-old, they also do also have an extremely healthy adult following. I'm one of them.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Finn said:
And I happen to know a perfect method to try this particular one out: Stop motion animation. The dolls used to make them certainly look eerily familiar to modern CGI animation, despite the method being actually even *older* than hand drawn.
True, stop-motion animation *is* older than hand-drawn but only by 2 or 3 years maximum. The first use of stop-motion was in 1897, done by George Méliès, the famous cinematic special-effects innovator (who I'm sure you're familiar with) from France. It was a short advertising film with children's alphabet blocks that moved around to spell the advertiser's name. Unfortunately, the film is lost and the name has been forgotten over time.

In 1898, two British guys living in the New York City area, J. Stuart Blackton & Albert E. Smith, made the first (known) animation to use articulated models (in this case, children's toys) for their short film, "The Humpty Dumpty Circus", which is also lost.

In 1900, Blackton & Smith released the first film to feature hand-drawn animation, "The Enchanted Drawing", but it's believed by some to have been made in 1899.

Yes, technically, stop-motion is older but just ever so slightly.;)
Finn said:
Indeed. When take a closer look at Disney's full-feature animated lineup, you noticed that there are plenty of pieces that could be hardly be regarded as nothing more than healthy, classic adventure romps that don't just possess a thing or two a male viewer can enjoy, but are more or less made with them in mind. There's The Sword in the Stone, Jungle Book, Robin Hood, The Black Cauldron, The Great Mouse Detective, Aladdin, The Lion King, Hercules and Tarzan, and I might even have missed some.
In addition to your fine, adventure-romp list, there's also "Atlantis: The Lost Empire", "Treasure Planet" and "The Jungle Book 2".
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Stoo said:
True, stop-motion animation *is* older than hand-drawn but only by 2 or 3 years maximum.
Well, I was never trying to paint it as significantly older. But in case somebody understood it as such, good addendum.

Stoo said:
In addition to your fine, adventure-romp list, there's also "Atlantis: The Lost Empire", "Treasure Planet" and "The Jungle Book 2".
No wonder I missed the first two, since they are from early 2000s, when I'd already kinda grown out of the age group for whom the new Disney feature was a must see.

And I'm not sure if mentioning a direct sequel to an original counts, as those are direct-to-dvd and therefore not considered parts of the official lineup*. Apart from the Jungle Book, I think the Lion King has a full-feature sequel too, and Aladdin has two, if not three. And a bit of googling reveals even more.

*There is one exception, though: The Rescuers Down Under.
 
Last edited:

Stoo

Well-known member
Finn said:
good addendum.
Thanks.:)
Finn said:
No wonder I missed the first two, since they are from early 2000s, when I'd already kinda grown out of the age group for whom the new Disney feature was a must see.
Same here because I've only seen those 2 on video. (They are decent adventure films and worth watching for anyone who is interested in adventure films.)

For me, the necessity to see animated Disney movies in the theatre ended after "The Rescuers" in '77 when I was 10 because "Star Wars" came along at the same time and rocked my world, essentially leaving Disney in the dust. Cartoons were becoming 'baby stuff'. (The only '80s Disney film that I saw in the theatre was "Tron" in 1982 when I was 15.) However, exceptions were made during the '90s for "Aladdin" and "Lion King"* because my girlfriend at the time wanted to see them. I went to see "Tarzan" in '99? (alone!) out of simple curiosity but "Fantasia 2000" was my last Disney film in a theatre and I went for the arty & event aspect of it.

*"Lion King" was the thing that revived my love for the Disney that I grew up with. It had one scene which made me realize how well they know the way to push emotional buttons, regardless of the audience member's age. The scene I'm referring to actually pushed me tears. Because of "Lion King", I began collecting all of the Disney movies from my youth. It's taken almost 20 years but my collection is *almost* complete. I'm still missing "Candleshoe" (1977) and "The North Avenue Irregulars" (1979).
Finn said:
And I'm not sure if mentioning a direct sequel to an original counts, as those are direct-to-dvd and therefore not considered parts of the official lineup*. Apart from the Jungle Book, I think the Lion King has a full-feature sequel too, and Aladdin has two, if not three. And a bit of googling reveals even more.

*There is one exception, though: The Rescuers Down Under.
I do remember that "Jungle Book 2" was theatrically released (in North America, anyway) before appearing on DVD, otherwise, I wouldn't have bother mentioning it. Since the story was related to Rudyard Kipling, I was paying attention. If it doesn't count then it doesn't count but I can recall it being on the big screen before hitting the home video market.
Smiff said:
I've seen enough clips of these films to know that they're so far down on my things-to-watch list that I doubt I'd live long enough to have to resort to watching them. :D
Give "The Jungle Book" a go, mate. It's a 'bare necessity of life' ♪ ♫ (it's also a 'bear necessity' but watch the movie and you'll see what I mean).:whip:
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Stoo said:
Give "The Jungle Book" a go, mate. It's a 'bare necessity of life' ♪ ♫ (it's also a 'bear necessity' but watch the movie and you'll see what I mean).:whip:

Now that you mention it, the repressed memories are flooding back.

I saw that in the cinema with a friend from school. We hadn't intended to see anything, but when we saw Jungle Book was being shown again we went in for a 'laugh'.

It wasn't much of a laugh as it turned out it was a musical. And you can't fast forward cinema showings unless you walk out. It was mind-numbingly boring.

And on top of that we were both told off for coming home late!

If Disney hadn't been such a big name we wouldn't have been suckered in to spend pocket money that could have better gone on Star Wars figures! :mad:
 

Montana Smith

Active member
But at least I uncovered the cause of my aversion to these kinds of films.

Repressed self-inflicted childhood trauma.



Tropic Thunder is another form of self harm, but it's survivable so long as you employ maximum fast forward and dispose of the offending article at the first opportunity upon reaching the end.
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
The following is an unlisted video from YouTube. I've mulled over posting it here, but if the Landlord thinks it's best to pull it feel free to do so.

Original article: John Lasseter Talks About Hand-Drawn Animation With Japanese T.V. Crew

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/iyyl5DsShz0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


John Lasseter said:
?Often times when you see something that is so hand-drawn, you?re always noticing the artist and the artwork, and it?s something inbetween you and getting caught up in the story. But not this film. This was amazing how you just get swept up in the story.?

Like the original article states, it would be irresponsible to searching for meaning without greater context, but what an interesting, unscripted moment. If this is how Mr. Lasseter honestly feels, then I suspect that you will never see a traditional hand drawn animated picture from Disney for as long as Lasseter is in charge.
 
Top