DisneyToon Studios Australia CLOSES

GeorgeC · Post by **GeorgeC** » July 25th, 2005, 1:24 pm

This is the final nail in the coffin for theatrical animation at Disney.

Read it and weep --- http://news.toonzone.net/article.php?ID=4773

It's too bad the final project is Cinderella 3. I don't know of much else that would be an ignominious ending for any studio other than yet another sequel to a film that never needed one...

I feel bad the artists, but can't say that this is completely unexpected given the mentality of Hollywood towards CGI-everything.

I guess Andreas Deja is gone from animation now that his final in-company outlet for 2-D is gone?

Post by **Plightyear** » July 25th, 2005, 3:32 pm

Message deleted

Post by **Josh** » July 25th, 2005, 3:33 pm

This news came as a complete shock to me, considering the very large list of projects we have recently read were in the works at the studio. I wonder if the closing of DisneyToon Studio's Australia is the result of Iger wanting to prove more that he is the Anti-Eisner, by closing down the studio responsible for the DTV sequels.

Post by **Meg** » July 25th, 2005, 4:23 pm

Oh fish, this sucks...Well, look at the bright side; no more DTVs. Still...this is a shock to me.

Post by **askmike1** » July 25th, 2005, 6:20 pm

Well, look at the bright side; no more DTVs.

I wouldn't count on that.

This is sad because DisneyToon was really getting good with their animation.

Post by **Christian** » July 25th, 2005, 6:28 pm

"I guess Andreas Deja is gone from animation now that his final in-company outlet for 2-D is gone?"

Answer to this coming when we post our interview with him sometime next week.

Post by **askmike1** » July 26th, 2005, 2:48 am

As I predicted, DTV's (and 2D animation) is not being killed, just moved to a different location.
http://www.jimhillmedia.com/mb/articles ... hp?ID=1569

-Michael

Post by **Ben** » July 26th, 2005, 7:06 am

This is just sucky, sucky, sucky.

Just when the guys down under were hitting their stride and starting to put out some very decent animation.

"Little difference to the consumer"? Well, you can bet that the quality will go back to the Hunchback, Pocahontas and Cinderella level rather than the definite higher style that the DTV people in Australia were doing.

What a sad blow - lip synch will go off again and characters will be off model. I was just watching Tarzan II last night and thinking how great the lips were, putting it down to the fact that, as native English speakers, the guys from Oz were obviously more adept at putting things like this together quickly.

Budgets have gone up eh? Well, so has the quality. What happens now - back to s**t money spin-offs with poor animation until they start to climb up in cost (but never quality)... where does the Mouse turn then?

F*****s!

Post by **ShyViolet** » July 26th, 2005, 3:39 pm

I'm really disappointed. I was actually hoping that the small sucesses of this studio would lead WDC to the conclusion that we NEED 2d, darnit-- but no.

I still really want to see Three Muskateers and Return to Neverland.

As Bart Simpson would say: "I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks AND blows!"

Post by **ShyViolet** » July 26th, 2005, 4:50 pm

This also reminds me of something I read a while ago in Prince of the Magic Kingdom: Michael Eisner and the re-making of Disney by Joe Flower:

Eisner, Katzenberg and Wells were sitting around back in 1985 contemplating how to produce some Disney TV animation. They were trying to figure out exactly how much money they should put into it. (Part of the reason they started it was so they could have new characters for the parks.) So Frank Wells actually says: "Would people know the difference? Could we produce it at half the cost and call ourselves "Joe Blow" for Saturday Morning?" And it was Eisner who vetoed that and said: "We can't go on television and look like trash."

True story.

Post by **Meg** » July 26th, 2005, 6:11 pm

askmike1 wrote:This is sad because DisneyToon was really getting good with their animation.

That's how I feel. Sad, sad, sad, sad, sad.

Post by **Meg** » July 26th, 2005, 6:15 pm

askmike1 wrote:As I predicted, DTV's (and 2D animation) is not being killed, just moved to a different location.
http://www.jimhillmedia.com/mb/articles ... hp?ID=1569

-Michael

I feel awful for all those animators of of their jobs. It's terrible to see how heartless Disney has become.

Post by **ShyViolet** » July 27th, 2005, 10:43 am

I wrote this at JHM: (Sorry it's a little long

)

IMO there are no small parts, only small actors. DTV movies are pretty much the only place you can find feature-length 2d animation nowadays (except for Anime, foreign films like Triplets etc...) and their quality may not always be Lion-King or Mulan caliber, but it's a start isn't it? Rome wasn't built in a day, 2d can't just suddenly "come back" without some gradual progress. That's why I'm so disappointed about this. Even though I like 3d films a lot, I would choose 2d in a second. (That's just me, not trying to put 3d down in any way) I was just watching "Osmosis Jones" yesterday (co-directed by Tom Sito BTW, former superstar animator at WDFA) It's fun, it's fast, it's nice to watch. I think that holds true for DTV as well. I WOULD NOT call it "drek-to-video," EVER! (Even though some websites saw fit to call it that.) And Return to Neverland, lest we forget, was theatrically released. Yeah, not all DTV is great, but that doesn't mean it's all bad either. What about all those 70s'/80's television specials and "lesser" animated films like Charlotte's Web and Heidi's Song? True, they all didn't get the booming crescendo of "This will be a classic for all time!" that some other animated films did, but that doesn't make them artistically bankrupt either.

Also remember that "A Goofy Movie" was intended as a "minor" film produced by the second banana studio at the time, WDFA-Florida. Now there's tons of people who say that's one of their favorite Disney films. If all the DTV films are supposadly "drek," what does that make "DuckTails: Treasure of the Lost Lamp"? What about "The Prince and the Pauper"? They are not "lesser" films in any way simply because they didn't have the fanfare and production values of efforts like Hercules and Mulan. By that thinking, you could say that Walt's aborted efforts like "The Wind in the Willows" and "Mickey and the Beanstalk" which were never theatrically released are garbadge, too. Look at every film individually, don't just sweep them all under one label.

I just want to add that there is an animated version of "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" (1979) directed by Bill Melendez, (the Peanuts films) that has mediocre production values. (a little better than Peanuts, but not feature-length) But you know what? It's one of my favorite films EVER. And even though I've never been a big fan of the Peanuts films, I know that there are a lot of people who love those, too. . Also, did you know that "It's a Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown" won an Emmy?
What about "How the Grinch Stole Christmas?" (the cartoon) Why else do they show that every year, as well as all those other cartoon Christmas specials, if they didn't have any value? Because they always get high ratings, that's why.
It all depends on your perspective.

Post by **Ben** » July 27th, 2005, 2:02 pm

Though I love the passion - and agree - I gotta set you right:

- Goofy Movie was largely animated at Disney Animation France, in Paris.

- It's Duck TALES (and was also animated in France).

- Prince And The Pauper was actually a traditionally animated film made mainly by the folks who did Aladdin. Andreas Deja did Mickey, and it does have some wonderful production values. It played with Rescuers Down Under in 1990.

- Wind And The Willows and Mickey And The Beanstalk did play theatrically - twice each! Beanstalk was originally paired with the story of Bongo the circus bear (almost a sequel to Dumbo) in the 1946 feature Fun And Fancy Free, while Willows was one half of the 1949 feature The Adventures Of Ichabod And Mr Toad, along with Sleepy Hollow. All these films (animated by the feature staff while they geared up for a return to single-story features with Cinderella) were later released again as stand-alone supporting featurettes for Walt's other films, before appearing on television.

- Melendez' Lion, Witch And The Wardrobe was indeed feature-length, clocking in at over 90 minutes. Its "mediocre" style was down to the fact that it was made as a TV-movie special and never intended for theatrical release, unlike Hanna-Barbera's Web and Heidi films, which were heavily adverstised and placed as Disney competitors back in their day.

Just wanted to let you know!

Post by **ShyViolet** » July 28th, 2005, 2:01 pm

Yeah, I had a feeling I screwed up a couple of things.

Actually someone on the other forum told me about the France thing. OK so...why does the Leonard Maltin Disney book say it was done in WDFA-Florida? Did they just do the storyboards or something like that, the way the Simpsons and other shows do (and then ship the animation out to Asia)?

I love animation of all kinds, TV, short film, everything. I don't think any company really sets out to deliberately make a "bad" film, it's just lack of care. Some animated features are teriffic, some putrid, but a lot fall in the middle. That doesn't make them trash. If you really, really love animation you find something good even in the "mediocre" films or the more problematic ones (like Don Bluth movies for instance). I kind of lumped all those films together because they were all considered "minor" films, (even though I guess some of them did have pretty high production values or were intended to be feature/length.) in comparison to the "classic", want my children/grandchildren/great-grand-children to see this movie type deals. But that doesn't make them "cheapquels", "drek to video", "weak" "crap", "trash," or anything else you want to call it!