The state and future of animation

[Ben]

Ghibli has closed twice already, before getting a reprieve from a new Miyazaki film, so it’s likely it will close again, for good, if he really is done with things.

It is indeed bizarre and sad that they can’t find anyone to continue it…while not reaching the levels of success of Miyazaki's films, Ghibli does have other directors, including his own son, of course, that could take on the production of features moving forward, though this akso doesn’t seem to be an option, for some reason, with many Ghibli staff leaving to found their own companies that continue the Ghibli legacy in style if not name, as well as pushing those boundaries.

Maybe it’s a Japanese cultural thing, where the company must end with the figurehead, although the studio itself was there before Miyazaki, so it reasons it could still be there after?

[Randall]

Actually, Miyazaki was a founder of Ghibli, along with Suzuki, with Takahata along for the ride from the beginning.

It seems odd from our perspective that they have not groomed new leadership to continue past Miyazaki's involvement. But their are tons of animation companies in Japan (including new ones like Studio Ponoc, founded by Ghibli people as Ben alluded to), and perhaps Ghibli's unique position in the industry is seen as resulting solely from the direct involvement of its founders. Perhaps no one else is bold enough to try even to replace them. Even Goro does not seem to have the confidence to fill his father's role, and his father has not been particularly supportive of him at times. The leadership at the studio seems content to let its legacy lie with its founders and the upcoming theme park.

[GeffreyDrogon]

Given the reception of most of Goro Miyazaki's work, especially the recent Earwig and the Witch, I don't think he can lead Studio Ghibli.

[Ben]

I thought Ghibli was founded, like Bluth's exodus from Disney, from a bunch of people working at the studio that produced Cagliostro? Albeit they renamed/created/founded Ghibli, but the studio framework was there already? That’s what I meant.

[GeffreyDrogon]

I wouldn't Call My Little Pony: The Movie an independent movie. Sure, it was released by Lionsgate, but it was bankrolled by Hasbro. Most independent animated films aren't good, unless you're talking about Bill Plympton.

[GeffreyDrogon]

It's hard to define independent animation, especially because it's hard to determine what qualifies as one.

[EricJ]

I thought Ghibli was founded, like Bluth's exodus from Disney, from a bunch of people working at the studio that produced Cagliostro? Albeit they renamed/created/founded Ghibli, but the studio framework was there already? That’s what I meant.

Thought it was the Japanese-outsourced animators who worked on The Last Unicorn, who decided they had enough experience to get together on their own and work on Miyazaki's Nausicaa pet-project?

[Ben]

Topcraft was another studio that was formed from people that also worked from Toei Animation, as far as my understanding goes. Whichever it was or whatever came first, my point was that Miyazaki and his team were already part of a studio framework before the name Ghibli came along…

[Randall]

Oh, is that what you meant?

Hmmmm....

... although the studio itself was there before Miyazaki...

Well, no. Ghibli was founded after production of Nausicaa, by Suzuki and Miyazaki, who had each worked on that film. (Then Miyazaki invited Takahata to join them as well.) Much of that team from Nausicaa might have carried over, naturally, but you can't say that the Studio Ghibli was there prior to Miyazaki. It was a whole new operation.

(That would be kind of like saying that United Artists existed prior to Chaplin coming along, because he had previously been in the Hal Roach system.)

[Ben]

I wasn’t clear, but I didn’t mean the name itself. Obviously the name came later! Maybe better to say "the (nameless) studio itself was there before Miyazaki". Basically, there was a studio-based team that made Ghibli style movies before the Ghibli name was known, just as there are the two or three new studios, especially Ponoc, that have recently picked up the Ghibli slack.

I’m not getting the Chaplin analogy, though, since UA was founded by four totally independent people who knew each other but had not worked together or already had a studio background (and Chaplin never worked for Roach: that was Harold Lloyd).

[Randall]

Shoot, I was thinking of Mack Sennett.

[Ben]

[GeffreyDrogon]

Why are most independent animated films bad, and why do most of them play in empty theaters? Is it a serious issue, or are major studios like Pixar and DreamWorks Animation preventing them from succeeding?

[O_V59]

I guess the price of quality animation plays a role in there. You either go for 3D CG animation (something my old self never entirely got used to) or for conventional animation which requires 24 high-quality drawings per second.

[EricJ]

Why are most independent animated films bad, and why do most of them play in empty theaters?

A) Because they're too focused on thinking they can "market" themselves into the same audience attention that the Big Three get, by copying the same trailer and trope licks, without that missing ingredient of quality,

and
B) Because they ARE so bad, and they know the theaters will be empty, most of their distributors stick them as "cannon fodder" in the last week of April or first week of October, so they can claim they got "theatrical release", but no one will notice.

(Some, like Delgo or Legends of Oz, get a little overconfident when the major Disney or Pixar isn't opening that week, try to grab a wide release in their place, and.....THEN we notice. )