Too many CGI toons?

[Sullivan]

In reference to the Variety article linked from the news page:

Just a year ago, overseeing animation seemed like one of the most comfortable places for a Hollywood exec to be sitting. But 2006 is proving that toons take just as much intestinal fortitude as the rest of the biz.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111794 ... =1&s=h&p=0

I frankly think that this article has a mistaken point of view. I think the hidden assumption was that back when CGI films were more hits than misses that it was the novelty of CGI that made them so.... rather than the simple fact that most of the hits were coming from the first and for many years only company doing CGI films.

This article seems to insult the taste or intelligence of the audience in two different ways. First it implies that people were rushing to CGI for the style, not because of the story. Then it implies that people will oversaturate on the style, again ignoring the question of story.

Gee, is the audience really that clueless? I don't think so.


You know, if EVERY film studios were making in animation was great, there'd be no limit to audience's appetite for it.

Where's Variety's article where they wonder if the market has been oversaturated with live action movies? The other plain assumption of the article is that animation is this little play area in hollywood, not allowed to grow beyond a novelty item.

Amid at Animation Brew likes this article. It fits with his usual rants against the current state of animation.

But I think this article says the exact wrong things about the audience... It parrots what we've been told is the shallow cynical hollywood take on the animation audience: that they don't know what's good, they only know what's shiny and colorful and kinetic.

Amid likes the article I think because it says negative things about the future of CGI animation, a lot of which he dislikes (especially the studio films). But I don't think an animation fan should endorse the presuppositions in the article, as it seems to be saying "there are too many animated films." Sorry, but making fewer films won't cause an uptick in box office. Making better films will.

[Ben]

In answer to the title of this thread: yes.

But that article is not as cut and dried as it likes to paint. I agree with Sully, but would point out that not all live-action films are hits either.

Essentially, there was a time when animation - any animation - was a special treat, coming every once every couple of years or so, or twice a year if we were lucky.

In the toon boom of the 1990s, we saw too much traditional animation, and apart from the Disney films, non of them were hits. In the end, even the Disney films didn't feel that special, and their takings went down too.

I think at first that the audience WAS excited by computer animation. Toy Story was a technical and creative success. But, in the same way as before, we're simply seeing the same burnout. CG is nothing shiny and new anymore, and what with the summer blockbuster incorporating some things that are even more amazing than animated films (LOTR? Kong? Narnia?) the effect has worn off.

That leaves the stories, which have not been getting better. Every CG film is a "family comedy". Every one. And there needs to be more varied approaches. That's why even Cars has not been the out and out hit (yeah, I know) that was expected. We're in a rut of the same old stuff.

I think Ratatouille and The Robinsons - and especially American Dog - will bring back some new style changes and story differences enough to bring back some of the audience. It's somewhat true that animation has been ghetto-ized and there is a wariness in Hollywood to step out and do something really new with it.

But then, that's because when it does, as with Final Fantasy, the rewards didn't come back. And that's where story DOES count.

[Sullivan]

But the thing to remember is not just that Toy Story and Bug's Life weren't just technological triumphs without anything similar.

The thing to remember is that those films would be great films even if they were 2-D or stop-motion.

Same thing with the great Disney films of the recent past. It wasn't just that animation was a visual treat... it's that the films really were that good.

These folks who think that those hits are the starting point, or the natural reaction of people to CGI don't understand that it could have easily gone the other direction. Witness Tron.

My opinion is that the market for CGI and animation in general can grow even past the current bumper-crop. Provided the audiences are happy with what they see.

[GeorgeC]

Pretty much the same old thing.

Clueless folk think it's the method and NOT the stories and characters that sell people on films.

It's a dark age of animation because too many films are being produced that are almost pure junk. CGI, hand-drawn? What's the diff if the storywriting (excuse me, boarding OR scripting) STILL isn't better than first-year screenwriting students and 90% of the junk already being produced for TV and theaters!

It WAS a lot better when it was one animated film a year or film every 2 to 3 years. As soon as everybody wanted a piece of that $400 million bucket (per year), the whole animation industry went to heck in a handbasket faster than the dot-com bust. Seriously, everybody from the lowest gopher to executive got way too greedy and making a good film seemed to be furthest from the actual point of producing these films.

Oh, and as for Amid? Don't pay the guy much mind. He's a sourpuss and a stereotypical iconoclast on the wrong side of history. Pretty much a clone of John K in opinion if not in drawing talent... (5-year-olds draw better than Amid.) Their side LOST the argument a long time ago.

*******************************

I don't foresee the problems in the animation industry clearing up any time.

THERE IS NO WALT DISNEY today and it's a joke if people think Pixar, John Lasseter, Brad Bird, or any of today's "anointed saviors" are going to change the situation.

Every ten years another joker gets hyped as the next animation savior. Ask the people who followed the careers of Ralph Bakshi, Don Bluth, and John K. All these guys burned out because they alienated too many of the people who funded their projects and/or because they simply lacked the ability to tell coherent moving stories.

Of the three, Bluth probably was the closest to being a real mover, but he just couldn't get past the worst Disney excesses (cute sidekicks who serve no purpose, sappy romances that don't advance the plot much, annoying kid characters) and produce a film with a better storyline than the worst Woolie Reitherman project. Bakshi and John K, in my opinion, just couldn't get past their worst adolescent impulses and produce anything much better than frathouse animation and that just won't fly with most of the mainstream public.

If you can't capture the hearts and minds of the mainstream, there aren't enough animation geek-fans to make an animated feature profitable, PERIOD. Let's face it -- you don't produce the moolah, you don't get to make another project!

None of these guys have the breadth of creativity and the sense of the public pulse that Walt Disney had. A man seems to come around about once every 4-5 generations. Disney was also smart enough to diversify his business interests with live-action, theme parks, and television series. You can't base a successful studio on just cartoons and animated features, folks as much as we all like the animated stuff.

It's a given that Walt Disney WAS a genius. The guys in animation today who are getting paid six- and seven-figures? They're lucky and living off the embers of men who set the standards for animation DECADES ago.

I don't see any of today's movers and shakers really redefining anything. They're great recyclers of decades-old plots but they sure as heck aren't innovative.

[eddievalient]

Ya know, back in the 90s when there were no more than 2 or 3 animated films per year, I used to pride myself on being able to say I had seen every one that was out there. Now, there are so many coming out that I just can't do it anymore. There are several I'll probably see at some point (Ice Age 2, Monster House, The Ant Bully, Open Season, Over The Hedge), but it's just too much. I miss the days when animated films were a special event that a family could go to together. And I miss the days when animated films were made for an all-ages audience. These days it seems like most of the stuff coming out is either only for kids (Doogal) or mainly for adults (the Shrek series) with nothing in between. I've said before on this forum that I would like for animation to grow beyond the "kid stuff" stigma, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to see some good all-ages stories made. I hope that in a couple of years the other shoe drops and the current bumper crop dwindles to only being a few films a year again. With fewer films coming out, maybe the remaining ones will be of higher quality. It's something to think about, anyway.

[ShyViolet]

I used to pride myself on being able to say I had seen every one that was out

Yeah, I know how that is. I was so proud that I saw EVERY single Disney film at the movies, from The Great Mouse Detective all the way to Tarzan. ( except for Hercules, come to think of it )


Not only that, but I saw all the re-releases in the late-80's in the theater--Bambi, Cinderella, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, the Fox and the Hound.

[ShyViolet]

I think it's interesting how people are complaining that there are too many animal/comedy movies (although I do agree); a few years ago people kept saying how there's too many epic films with humans as the lead and that animation should go back its roots--animals, comedy, cartooniness, etc....

I guess no one likes too much of a good thing.
-
Personally, I prefer human-centered films...although I think animal ones can be great too. I just ID more with humans (maybe because I am one ) and those stories, overall, appeal to me more.

Also, in all the successful human-led animated features, none of the humans ever looked COMPLETELY realistic; they were all stylized in one way or another. Belle, Snow White, Cinderella, John Smith, Pocahontas, Aladdin, Hunchback, Mulan.

And of course The Incredibles...great-looking humans, but very stylized. I think they were wonderful designs and I always marvel over them.

[ShyViolet]

DW has a LOT of Toons coming out this year and next...like the mag 3D artist pointed out this month, they are actually in much better shape than most people think.


http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... rnoon.html

[Meg]

And of course The Incredibles...great-looking humans, but very stylized. I think they were wonderful designs and I always marvel over them.

Me too...I love looking at concept art and stuff for them. Very cool.

I like your avatar, BTW.

[ShyViolet]

Thanks much!