CGI whipping hand-drawn animation
June 15, 2002
Ananova reports: Four thousand Disney fans voted Toy Story as their favorite Disney movie in a BCC poll. The Jungle Book was in second place followed by Toy Story 2, last year's Monsters Inc. and The Lion King. Classics such as Bambi and Lady And The Tramp also did well, but there was no place in the poll for Dumbo or Fantasia.
And now the latest rumor making the rounds on the Net is Disney insiders are still whispering that the sequel to Dumbo will be animated in CGI.
It’s no wonder Disney is probably considering producing a computer-animated Dumbo. It seems CGI has captured the imaginations of young kids everywhere. Look at the recent success stories: Ice Age, Monsters Inc. and Shrek. They were all box office smashes for their respective studios. Shrek and Monsters Inc. grossed more than $200 million before the movies ever stopped screening in theatres. Ice Age is already over the $165 million mark and Toy Story 2—Disney’s third highest grossing movie ever behind The Lion King and Monsters Inc.—has exceeded revenues of $245 million.
Where does the traditionally animated fare rank on the top-ten highest-grossing animated movies list (I know, that was a mouthful)? It doesn't. Well, nothing recent, at least. The Lion King, Aladdin, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, and Tarzan are all there, but where are Disney’s other classic flicks?
Judging by the aforementioned poll and box office revenues, a movie’s potential success appears to increase if it features fancy computer graphics. But is there more to it? I think so.
Disney should look under the surface. Their recent traditional-animation movies have been failures because they simply don’t appeal to everyone like The Lion King or Aladdin once did. Atlantis looked more boring than fun. Granted, I have yet to see this movie, but by not making me interested enough to take that initiative, Disney already lost the battle. Same goes for The Emperor’s New Groove.
Sure, slick computer graphics in Monsters Inc., Shrek and Ice Age make it easy to put butts in theater seats. But I think their success has just as much to do with the overall appeal of the characters in the movies. The people in Atlantis and the dumb llama in Emperor don’t hold a candle to Baloo, Pumbaa, Genie, the seven dwarfs or the little mice from Cinderella. Disney’s newer movies are full of forgettable faces and that’s the damn problem.
Has the Mouse House lost a step? The once untouchable company is starting to get whipped at its own game by DreamWorks (Shrek, Chicken Run) and Fox (Ice Age).
This is the point where I’d bitch, moan and wax nostalgic about the glory years of the early and mid-1990s when Disney was subsequently releasing several top-notch (traditionally) animated films. But I can’t. You see, this year, Lilo and Stitch comes out. And that darn hybrid koala has already peaked my interest. I can’t wait for it! I’m betting this June, Disney is going to have another enormous animated hit on its hands—one that isn’t done with CGI.
So can traditional animation still sell? Well, if the upcoming DreamWorks movie, Spirit: Stallion of Cimarron doesn't, then it's heavily rumored that the company will say goodbye to hand-drawn animation for a long time to come. As for Disney, to modify an old saying, this June, the proof will be in the pudding. Lilo and Stitch will hopefully show everyone that Dumbo II doesn’t need to be in CGI—and damn it, it shouldn’t be.
Chris Douvalas
