The Direction of Animation as of 2011

There is yet another (but insightful) article and debate about the future of animation, cartooning and filmmaking in general at Cartoon Brew.

Not going to get into that debate here but it did bring to mind that despite all the things CG animation is praised for what it can do, it's interesting how much little attention is given to what it's not doing. Or rather how the medium is not being maximized nor fully exploited.

"Realism"seems to be the mantra of CG animation. To that I answer, "so what"? The computer can do so much, literally anything. However, it seems more attention is put on "replicating" life, rather than reinterpreting it. I liked Kung Fu Panda 2, but seeing all down to the little taste-buds in Po's tongue while he's screaming in 3D fails to impress me. At least the way it was done.

I remember a similar shot from John Kricfalusi's Spumco, Inc.'s animation on the Ren and Stimpy show. In that case, artists exploited that shot by ruthlessly caricaturing the sores, mis-colorations, and critters found on the character's tongue.

My point is there seems to be more editorial done in the process of hand-drawn animation rather than in CG animation. Not that it can't be done, but (correct me if I'm wrong) it just isn't being done. It seems producers are so wrapped up in technology, dazzling audiences with photo-realistic cartoons, they are overlooking the simplest points in getting a reaction from audiences. Just creating a photo-realistic image is not enough.

Since cartoons have proven to be a multi-billion dollar business there is more financial pressure on studios to minimize risks and losses. In that kind of ginger-footed environment, could a Tex Avery of CG animation be born?

Chuck Jones' 1963 short film "Now Hear This" is a perfect example of the editorial that hand-drawn just tends to inherently do. "Now Hear This", simple as it is, was a lot more entertainingly experimental than a lot of things in CG recently. It's not that CG can't do these things, it's just that unfortunately as of December 31st 2011, we don't see it being done enough.

DISNEY's Golden Opportunity

This is going to be my last blog on "rescuing"hand-drawn animation from being called an anachronism. Promise.

How'd that Art Babbit anecdote from Richard Williams go? "I'm not a Luddite". A story how animator legend Art Babbit was contesting the use of new technology over traditional ways in animation.

I'm not on a mission to champion hand-drawn animation but, let me stop lying -- I am. But it's only because it's I feel it's one of the last mediums that people can truly say is "magical". Something that seems to be lacking in today's concept of entertainment.

People look at a fantastic CG film like a "Finding Nemo" or "Wall-E" and people say "Wow, how'd they do that?" But logic takes over and says , "Oh, it was done in the computer.....wonder what program they used...." (respect to all the artists who work in CG, of course it isn't that easy, but to the layman....I'd wager that's what many think).

People look at at "Beauty and the Beast", "Lion King" or "Bambi" (even by today's standards), people's suspend their disbelief for a moment and they say, "How'd they do that??" Yes, logic takes over and tells the layman, "Well...someone drew it." But then logic grabs hold again replies: "Yeah, I know they're drawings but....HOW'D did they do that??"

Magic. No program for that.

For those who are animators, draftsmen or illustrators, you know that "look of wonderment" people have when you grab a piece of paper, and like a magician, make a bunch of hand-drawn lines come to life and with personality. People still look at it as some kind of magic trick.

Looking at Disney Animation Studio's box office movie track record, they have a history of "breaking even". Films like "The Lion King" are an anomaly that the studios have desperately been attempting to replicate ever since.

It's virtually criminal how Disney's management literally threw the baby out with the bathwater in an effort to "keep up with the Joneses'" in CG animation.

With the exception of "Treasure Planet" and "Home On the Range" (I feel they just gave up on that one), Disney's hand-drawn films haven't done so badly. "Princess and the Frog" arguably did better at the box office than ALL of Disney's CG animated films. And with "Tangled" coming in at a budget of $250 million (second most expensive film ever made) ---- sad to say box office returns just don't look promising.

'Frog' had a better B.O. performance for their dollar than their CG films which basically broke even. (Which are still failures, because of the low profit margin) And if I'm right the animation for 'Frog' was done in Canada since there aren't any hand-drawn facilities at Disney animation anymore. Cost them even less money to be sure.

To the point, this is a golden, golden opportunity for Disney in this current market. Why doesn't Disney simply do what they do best? "Make moving , appealing films that yes, do have compelling and mature stories --- in traditional hand-drawn animation."

That's what Disney is MOST famous for, right? People say animation of ANY kind and Disney is what comes to mind. And especially "hand-drawn" animation. They have the market on that, and they have never had to apologize for it and they NEVER will.

When every studio is trying to make the next CG blockbuster, wouldn't it make more sense to make something that distinguishes you dramatically from your competitors?? Especially when it's something everyone looks to you on being the authority about, anyway?

Should I insert the "New Coke" vs. 'Classic Coke" business theory in here?

Looking at B.O. sales Disney should stop trying to compete with Pixar, Dreamworks, Sony, Blue Sky, Imagi, Animal Logic or whatever fly-by-night CG studio and go back to doing what they do best: compelling hand-drawn animation. If they are worried about being "left behind" technology wise that's a moot point since they own Pixar.

Films like "Finding Nemo", "Toy Story" or even "Shrek" did so well when they did is greatly because they were different. Yes, the stories were told well, but they also stood out as something attractively new. Something Disney could exploit dramatically right now.

But if they do, they will have to do better than "Winnie the Pooh" as a feature. (As much as I love Pooh) I am sure it will make money but that film has: "targeted for mothers babysitting kids between 11:00 am and 3:00 pm" written all over it. Winnie the Pooh offhand is not what most moviegoers would call a date movie. At least they way it's being marketed it doesn't seem that way. (If I am off or wrong, someone please call me out)

The movies that sell the most year round are comedies...and I'm sure romantic comedies. Isn't that right up Disney's alley? That's basically what everything from Beauty and the Beast, to Aladdin, to Mulan basically were. Comedies with a romantic element. That's why they worked not only as family fare, but were decent enough to be a date movie. (That is when the writing was up to snuff.)

It's one thing for Disney to expand into the CG territory, but doing it in favor to replace a medium that has fueled it's engine for over seventy years was a mistake. When they were at the top of their hand-drawn game, Disney was like the NY Yankees of animation. Who the hell could touch them when they could assemble the dream teams of their choosing?

Am I wrong, but are there dramatically more studios around today making CG animated features? Now that technology has somewhat leveled the playing field somewhat?

When all the studios are trying to impress audiences with CG and 3D this and that, it's hard to know, or care for that matter who is producing what.

Golden opportunity for a studio doing something different to truly stand out. There's a brass ring hanging out there waiting for Disney to reclaim ... again.

To Disney management: "You guys are in the magic business. Who ever thought of the catchphrase: Disney's "Digital Magic" is a moron....I mean, the word is an oxymoron. Digital concepts can be reasoned, explained understood logically.

Magic.... (the thing Disney virtually has the license on) ... magic never is explained so easily. Who knows where that stuff comes from when artists draw? It must be magic because most artists themselves can't explain it. You guys have a hot and rare commodity. Exploit it before someone else does."

Verisimilitude...can you spell it Disney?

Animator Bruce W. Smith gets an "A". If there was a category for Best Supporting Actor in an Animated Role, he'd certainly win. Why? Aside from amazing draftsmanship and great animation, his handling of the character, Doctor Facilier in Disney's "The Princess and the Frog" was the most believable character in the whole film for me.

However, "Princess and the Frog" fails for me with a solid "C" ranking.

I SO much wanted to like this film. Especially because, yes, it was the first Disney hand-drawn animated feature with an African-American lead; yes, because this was the first time we've seen hand-drawn animation in YEARS; but mostly because....well it's Disney. But the mouse house has forgot one magic ingredient with this one: believability.

Even though this was an animated feature, an emotional sense of verisimilitude is vital to make your audience care.

This film had wayyy to many gags. Many of which involved bodily fluids, flatulence innuendos and derriere gags. I've seen Warner Brothers animated cartoons that had more sincerity and taste. And that's not sarcasm.



The meeting notes of some Disney exec., "more gags, more gags!" was throughout the film. Of all the people who really wanted to see hand-drawn animation make a comeback, this was a real disappointment.


Brad Bird's Ratatouille is a good example of what a successful animated feature should be. Ratatouille was successful not because of CG animation, but because it was a good story and emotionally, a believable story...despite being about a rat who could cook. Which is no less plausible than a prince who gets turned into a frog. But how do you handle that story is the question. Intelligently or with sight gags? "IF a rat could cook, well, this is probably the most believable way it would happen."



Ratatouille worked in CG and would have worked in hand-drawn and I even as live action film. And would have been just as compelling.


Animation is good animation when you forget you are watching animation.


Princess and the Frog didn't work not because it was a hand-drawn animated feature, but because it was a caricature of one.

ACE and '84

1984 was a good year. Imagined things of the future were becoming realized. Ridley Scott launched his famous "1984" commercial announcing the Macintosh computer. George Orwell's 1984 and dystopian view of the future was nowhere to be seen...yet. And best of all, (for me anyway) there was "Dexter"...I mean "Ace", I mean, "Space Ace".

Former Disney animation chief and maverick, Don Bluth released (as a followup to the laserdisc video game and arcade blockbuster, "Dragon's Lair") "Space Ace in 1984, showcasing some of the best hand drawn animation you could interact with for a quarter.

The Hollywood pitch for "Space Ace" most likely would have been " Jerry Lewis' Nutty Professor meets Star Trek". With a more coherent narrative and more dynamic game play than "Dragon's Lair", "Space Ace" was a hit.

Now that I think about it, 1984 wasn't really a good year for everyone. Some were not too happy with President Reagan's economics. The Cold War was still in full effect. (As seen in Rocky IV) Walt Disney Pictures was slated to release "The Black Cauldron" only a year later and there was some uncertainty as to what direction that film was supposed to be in....as well as the studio itself.

Bluth however, (along with animation partners, Gary Golman, and John Pomeroy) was on track and were smoking hot. "The Secret of NIMH" (1982) was already made a huge impact, "Dragon's Lair" was making waves, just as "Space Ace" and his Steven Spielberg, Amblin Animation collaboration, "An American Tail" was just around the corner.

Don Bluth remains one of my most admired animation directors. Not just for his "style" (the draftsmanship and timing in his films without a doubt have a certain"look") but for his courage to branch out on his own and do his own thing. The "Bluth/ Disney" rift is almost legendary. There's no denying his departure from Disney did affect production and leave a bad taste in the mouths of many affiliated with them. I'll never forget hearing about how the ABC Network (under Disney of course) refused to air any commercial material that could have promoted Bluth's animated version of "Anastasia".

Whoa. I've really digressed here. Back to Dexter...I mean, Space Ace. This certainly old news, but "Space Ace" now available as game playable as an app for the iPhone. Some say five bucks is a steep for an app, but considering how much money I spent as a kid playing this game, five bucks is worth it. But it's not the gameplay that I'm interested in. Space Ace has great animation (for a video game) that has withstood the test of time in its measure of being entertaining.

And if you are really cheap, well, then look below.

Space Ace - Original Game Full Movie

Alex | MySpace動画

Anime? Anyone?

Living in Tokyo, Japan has granted me some folly as well as wisdom. It killed a lot of very erroneous, preconceived notions about Japan and Japanese culture. And it heightened my appreciation for the many good things Japan has to offer.

Despite what one would think, however, living in Japan has made me develop an almost irrational and pathological dislike for Japanese Anime.

I never thought the day would come, because it seems like only yesterday I regarded Japanese animation almost as the "second coming" in terms of what it had to offer the animation medium.

Todd McFarland (comic artist of Spider-Man and Spawn fame) summed up Japanese animation best for me as I paraphrase: "Japanese animation has mastered giving you the impression a lot is happening, when it really isn't."

Animation in general is very expensive. Japanese animation studios have mastered holding people's attentions with extremely limited animation (held poses, talking heads on static bodies that almost never move, animation sometimes done on 4's, 8's and 12's) BUT holding everything together with simple, but solid draftsmanship, action scenes that ARE animated quite well and dynamically, and reasonably compelling and mature plotlines.

I feel it has been the draftsmanship and the plotlines that has made the world go ape over Japanese animation over the past few years.

Japanese anime can be like "moving manga" (not a far stretch from the old Marvel Superheroes cartoons from the 1960's for those who know). The Japanese animation way is more concerned with presenting a graphic image rather than putting forth a convincing acting "performance" ala "Disney".

Is there good Japanese animation? Hell, yes. Katsuhiro Otomo is still number one in my book. Yes, Hayao Miyazaki is a true artist and visionary. Japanese animation has its place in the world as a viable medium and it deserves appreciation on it's own special merits.

Personally I'm glad that there is a huge fan base for Japanese animation in this digital age of CG animation. (which from looking at recent B.O. sales seems to have been losing it's "wow"-factor steam unless it has "Pixar" or "Dreamworks" on the billing) Japanese Anime serves as an example that there are those who still have a huge interest and appreciation for traditionally hand-drawn animation.

Sad to hear that in the past couple of years that DVD sales for Japanese animation has plummeted (as interest in the medium continues to rise). Let's face it, video piracy is to blame here. The majority of the consumers who are into anime are not the types to go out to the local video store for the newest anime when they can get it online for free. Not a good thing.

Found an interesting story from the Wall Street Journal on how the animation business in Japan hasn't been doing so well, and those who love the art of animation who are willing to endure during these tough times.