Disney and Traditional Animation: Dead or Alive?

Technological advances have led to dramatic changes in the state of animation. Now there are computers that are powerful enough to allow complex surface modeling to create worlds of animated opportunity and storage media dense enough to store the vast quantities of data it takes to make an animated feature film. This has caused some painful ripples in the animation world, many of them seen just in the last few months. In the light of these changes in the animation field with the elimination of the Disney traditional animation department in Orlando Florida one is forced to ask the question, is traditional animation dead?

I would argue that the answer is no. Unfortunately the idea men and script writers of the last few traditional animation debacles like this year’s Brother Bear or 2002’s flop Treasure Planet are still around as well. There have been a few recent films like the ultra cute Lilo and Stitch that had good box office returns despite being made the traditional way. The argument has been made that traditional animation is more expensive. Though it may be true in time as technology continues to increase in capability and decrease in price, but currently the costs for CGI animation are comparable to traditional cell animation. Traditional animation does take longer, so it makes it more difficult for a company like Disney to turn out the requisite one animated smash a year because of the labor intensive nature of the work.

The biggest problem with the animation films the studio has been putting out is that there are too many of them and they are of inferior quality. People can tell the good from the bad sometimes and they certainly seem to have little tolerance for poor animated films, especially when there are so many good ones out there. Movies like Shrek, A Bug’s Life and Monster’s Inc make money not because of the type of animation that is used, but because the stories are well scripted and the characters are likeable and not insipid like those of the film Brother Bear. Legacy Animation Studios, helmed by a number of former Disney animators hits the right thread. ‘We believe that traditionally animated films are still a viable form of entertainment,’ says Legacy Animation Studios Directing Manager, Eddie Pittman. ‘Our goal is to create quality animated films with compelling stories and strong characters and to continue Walt Disney’s legacy of hand drawn animation.’

I feel very confident that if a film like The Little Mermaid or Beauty and the Beast came out today that there would be a market for it and that people would flock to the theater to see it the way that they have done so for CGI films like Shrek. It is not that we as an audience are astounded by the miracle of CGI animation; it is that these films are well crafted, from their characters, to their story, to the clever casting of voiceovers.

I would argue that the problems seen within Disney in recent years and culminating with the Comcast buyout offer stem from issues far beyond the limitations of traditional animation. Disney has steadily been trimming the animation department since its height in 1999 and it seems that they let the good writers go first. Disney has extended itself too far, tried to do too much at once, and made a lot of enemies along the way. It is already well known that some of the members of the board are looking for Michael Eisner’s head, and it is interesting that the Comcast bid went directly to the board and not to Eisner. If Brian Roberts the head of Comcast is able to woo Pixar back into bed with a Comcast owned Disney, Eisner might not have a leg to stand on. Disney won’t go cheap, but they just might go.

Of course the market for animation is not what it once was. It used to be that Disney was not only the big boy; it was the only game in town. With the breakup of the Pixar/Disney distribution deal, Disney will now have to rely on it’s own animation skills for its profits. Pixar on the other hand seems to have the winning formula in the film creation. They have scored massive hits with their last few movies appealing to both children and parents. Pixar’s goal now is to learn the rules of the game that Disney as a distribution and marketing firm new so well, how to sell your product. Since their product is generally so good and the have such name recognition I don’t think this should be a problem for Pixar. Add DreamWorks SKG into the mix and you have a trio of very able competitive companies slugging it out in the animation market. And competition, counter to protectionists’ beliefs, is generally a good thing for consumers.

Traditional animation will survive in the ever broadening entertainment landscape, but it is unlikely that it will retain the place it once held as the bread and butter of the animated film world. Let’s just hope that Disney, with or without Comcast, can get their act together and fly right. Otherwise, without great writing, but armed with their marketing juggernaut, we may be deluged for another few years with trite, cutesy characters staring at us from every toy store with nothing new to say.

Related posts:

1. Major Studio Business Projections