The only thing I really have to comment on here is that if Lasseter touches Rapunzel or makes Keane change to traditional animation, I will be extremely angry. Other than that I really enjoyed Monster House (imo best animated film of the year), but I just don't view Zemeckis as Disney. Hopefully they don't give that many people the pink slip

Yeap. Pretty much. I've heard alot of money has been put into "Rapunzel" has it not? Taking this back to the drawing board to turn it into a traditional animation film would probably delay it, we'd probably never see the light of day for it. And I could easily see Dreamworks making a masterpiece knock-off of Rapunzel a year before Disney would release their traditional animation one. Those backstabers, I could see that happening. All I know, is if this film gets turned from the glorious CG it is now to traditional animation. it would probably take years till it sees daylight, probably until 2011, god, seriously, its been worked on for a long time now. Disney CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE KEANE. Keane is a very talented Disney Animator, a legendary worker for Disney. Losing him would be a very bad thing for Disney. Gah. I'm mad now. John, don't touch Rapunzel please. It sounds amazing. And I love the storyboards. And there better not be a new news story that points to a new fact that Rapunzel will bear the Pixar name. wouldn't that suck. gahh. i'm really mad, whatever. oh well, thats life. live on, i gotta do my ap history homework, gosh

My thoughts?

Motion Capture is not animation. I sadly suspect that it will end up like some parasite that slowly but surely eats away at legitimate animation until it has driven it to extinction. REAL artists and animators see Mo Cap for what it is - a pretender to the throne. It is only praised by the clueless unwashed masses, as well as the penny-pinching studio execs and accountants who see it as a way of producing something that resembles animation cheaply and quickly, yet doesn't require all those pesky animators to create it. Only a few clean-up animators are needed to do some superficial tweaking of the resulting images, but they can't do much more than polish the turd.

Though I am hoping that Disney Feature Animation can save the day by bringing back traditional drawn animation, I am not optimistic that John Q. Public will be able to tell the difference between drawings that magically come to life upon the screen or, what amounts to in my opinion, the filmic equivalent of Frankenstein's monster - a stiff and ungainly, resuscitated corpse that shuffles around awkwardly, sometimes resembling Tom Hanks or a penguin...

This is news?

Who HASN'T known about this for months?

Amazing that it's not the CEO, not the executives nor board of directors who are laid off - but it’s always the artists.  Then they tell the remaining artists, you better give us big money makers or you too will be canned.  Then the CEO / executives get big pay days/bonuses.  In conclusion, if you child wants to be an artist, pull that pencil out of their hand and tell them that they should plan on being an executive.  Or perhaps that too is not realistic for Disney CEO/executives/board of directors are appointed by a select group.

Train Conductor Tom Hanks = Creepy

Motion capture works great at bringing animation into traditional movies (Andy Serkis in Kong and LOTR), but I just don't see a market for it as a complete movie process.

From the few clips I've seen of "The Polar Express" and "Monster House", I think that motion capture technology looks kind of bad.  I don't like this new deal at all (I had never heard about it until right now).  Why?????  What was going through the minds of the executives at Disney?  Did "The Polar Express" and "Monster House" do such good business that Disney wants to emulate them?  Bringing back traditional animation (yay "Enchanted", bigger yay "The Frog Princess") should give Disney the upper hand.  To be honest, we "Disney Dweebs", and "animation dweebs" are excited about 2D coming back to Disney.  But what about the average parent, who brings their kids to any animated/family film?  Sure, they grew up with traditionally animated Disney films, but I can't see them being excited...it'll be just another thing to do with the kids.  I can't see them being excited about the motion capture films any more than the average CGI film, or the upcoming traditionally animated films.  I'm excited for traditional animation coming back, not at all for this motion capture...so many people think that it looks creepy...why bother, Disney?  I never want a Disney film to flop, but I hope that these motion capture films flop and then the deal will be over and Disney can go back to making movies that look good.

urgh- double post-

I forgot to add that I don't want "Rapunzel" touched, either.  Sure, initially I would have much rather had a 2D "Rapunzel", but Glen Keane and the other workers have put so much time and effort into it, that if John Lasseter touches it, all the fans will hate Lasseter.  I'm still skeptical about him being in charge, and if he makes a bad move, I'll be so mad.  

My opinion, for what it's worth, is tha this is just more of Iger being the "technophile" he's described as. He downloads shows via iTunes, puts movies on-line, and now sees a new type of animation that may have potential.

The investment is not that big (he didn't have to buy a studio), since he is setting up a production deal, much like Disney has with Bruckheimer. If the motion capture flops, Disney does not have to pick up the costs of future movies, and Zemekis would be welcome to market to other studios.

I think making traditional Disney animated films an "event" sounds like exactly the right idea.  It seems to me that when Disney animated films came out every year, or even twice in the same year, that's when they had problems.  I remember when Disney's animated films first came out on video...some were marked as "Disney's Classic..." and some were not.  Then somewhere along the way they were all marked as "Disney's Classic" (including, say, the Rescuers sequel), and they films that were "Disney's Classic..." were now "Disney's Masterpiece..."  

It's just human nature...the more common something becomes, the less exciting it will be to people.  I think having only one film in full production is the way to go.

As far as I'm concerned, anything that drives Disney back to creating traditionally animated motion pictures that are "events" is a good thing.

I still firmly believe that the medium of communication is largely irrelevant. There have been traditionally animated films that sucked and traditionally animated films that are classics. There have been computer animated films that sucked and computer animated films that are classics.

What distinguishes the two? Well ... story, of course. And by story, I mean the larger use of that word that encompasses all things that are good in a movie ... gags, drama, love, hate, engaging characters, conflict, resolution ...

The truth is the American public is STILL smart enough to recognize a turd for a turd. There may have been a time when they were suckered in by CGI's slick appearance, but that time has passed. People just want good movies. Period.

So what's the point? The point is, if Disney makes GREAT traditionally animated films they will be successful. If they don't, they won't. And the same goes for Zemeckis ... if his films are great, they'll be great. If not, they won't be. They're not going to squeeze out traditional animation just purely by existing.

All I care about is that Disney makes great animated films. I would much prefer that they use both mediums to create them ... I love The Lion King and Sleeping Beauty and Little Mermaid and Snow White and Beauty and the Beast and Peter Pan equally alongside Toy Story, Cars, The Incredibles, and Finding Nemo. Who cares how they were made? THEY'RE GREAT MOVIES!!

The problem is Disney has just flat-out made DISMAL films lately ... The only one squeezed in there of late that was good was Lilo and Stitch (and even that wasn't GREAT). But they had a serious of complete stinkers that just KILLED their brand. I think they over-reacted a bit with the rush to bring in outside talent, but at least they recognized they had to shake things up.

My biggest worry in all this is what someone else alluded to above ... Iger seems to be a real techno-weenie. I worry sometimes that he's getting WAY too caught up in the delivery method of their content and not focusing enough on making sure it's content that someone actually wants.

Why do I have a feeling that this deal is less about motion capture, and more about making nice with people that Eisner ticked off?  

Why do I have a feeling that, with just a bit more sucking up, Iger's first "2-D Animated Event Movie" will be the slam-dunk that Eisner let slip through his fingers?  

Why do I have the feeling that Bob Hoskins better keep his schedule open?

Actually, the technology of motion capture isn't what interests me about this deal.  It's story development.  Monster House had a very well-developed story and characters; it was quite well-written, moreso than the last several Disney releases.  (And there was a great deal of actual animation involved; how in the world does one motion-capture a "living" house?)

If Disney spends half the creative time on story that Zemekis' team (or Pixar) does, then those "event" pictures have half a chance of being as good as they purport.

John: do not touch Rapunzel with one finger!! If you do that, you'll not only have the whole Disney fanbase against you, but I swear that once you lose Keane (in other words: he leaves Disney) you.. will.. lose.. your.. job..

And: hmm.. I actually hate motion capture. Looks like.. well.. I just hate it. It isn't pleasant to look at for over an hour long, so I actually hate this deal. Oh god, I'm so furious about that sentence "Plus there are all these stories lately about how Lasseter has been bumping heads with Glen Keane over 'Rapunzel.'" Grrr.. JOOHHNN!!! :@

Motion capture looks to me to be just a digital form of rotoscoping. And it doesn't impress me. "Polar Express" was awful - but I must admit, not just because of the wax-museum effect of the motion capture. It had a lousy story. The original story was, after all, just a child's picture book with a great premise, great illustrations and a weak ending. The film's extrapolation of that flimsy material didn't improve anything much IMO. But you know, the motion capture was still the most off-putting part of the movie. The characters' eyes were the stuff of nightmares, LOL, glassy and inhuman. I really don't get the excitement over this new technology.

Yeah, and of course talent gets victimized at the hands of non-talent. That, my friends, is truly the oldest story in the world.

gigglesock said:

"Motion capture looks to me to be just a digital form of rotoscoping."

That's exactly what I thought of when I read this ... and it's funny, because I'm just reading the new Neal Gabler biography of Walt Disney and he spends a good bit of time talking about how they were forced to rotoscope many of the scenes in Snow White just to meet their deadlines.

They were all very ashamed of this and went to great lengths to conceal it from the general public. It's sort of ironic now that they view this like a great invention.

I just don't see what the point of it is? Why invest in motion capture when you could just make real-life movies, or animated movies? I...I'm honestly confused.

When is Disney going to start making real-people movies again? I don't even remember what their last one was...

Woops, I am dumb. Apparently Disney HAS made some real-people movies somewhat recently. I don't know, one is apparently about a Pirate, and another about a Lion...not too sure about those.

Motion Capture is not animation. I sadly suspect that it will end up like some parasite that slowly but surely eats away at legitimate animation until it has driven it to extinction. REAL artists and animators see Mo Cap for what it is - a pretender to the throne. It is only praised by the clueless unwashed masses, as well as the penny-pinching studio execs and accountants who see it as a way of producing something that resembles animation cheaply and quickly, yet doesn't require all those pesky animators to create it.

...you know sadly enough? It costs almost the same to make a a feature without mo-cap whether it's CG or 2d.

So many thoughts...ok here goes...

bhb007 said:

Train Conductor Tom Hanks = Creepy

Motion capture works great at bringing animation into traditional movies (Andy Serkis in Kong and LOTR), but I just don't see a market for it as a complete movie process.

Agreed on both points.  Also, WDWacky and Slowjack both pointed out that in their opinion, going back to making an event of traditional 2D is good.  Wasn't that what we were saying on this site back when the idea first came up.  Yay 2D?  That's what Disney should be known for, doing QUALITY traditional animation.  And this last thought from WDWacky...

I worry sometimes that he's getting WAY too caught up in the delivery method of their content and not focusing enough on making sure it's content that someone actually wants.

What a profound thought, and so nicely summed up.  Thanks.

Obviously change comes with some pain but this all makes lots of sense.

This strategy isn't really different that GM or Ford with lots of different name plates for thier cars. If each "studio" has its area of expertise we can have computer, traditional and motion capture. There are stories that will lend themselves to each style.

As a former employee of WDFA, this motion capture technology adds insult to injury. The motion capture for Polar Express and Monster House was awful!! Those characters are dead.... walking zombies.  Why WDFA would choose to go that way is beyond insult, as there are so many talented animators at Disney that can produce work of incomparible quality to something like motion capture.  Secondly, it is important to realize that Andy Serkis is not completely responsible for the performance of King Kong or Gollum.  Alot of Gollum was, dare I say it, hand animated with the performance of the animators, not him.  The animators were not given their performance credit for much of that work, and it is that misguided notion that Andy did it all, that leads to this type of support for motion capture technology.  The best performances for Gollum and King were done the good ole fashioned way..... with the animator as an actor, keying, and doing all the facial work as well.

 Secondly, I find it extremely disturbing that WDFA is going back to doing all traditional animation.  Whether we animators like it or not, technology is here to stay.  It is increasingly important that WDFA embrace technology as part of its animation process, finding ways of combining 2D and 3D together to tell the story.  WDFA leaves itself in a vulnerable position, if it thinks it should replace all of its animation talent with motion capture, and live in a bubble with a handful of traditional animators working in a turret doing 2D.  The survivor is the one who embraces new technology and find ways of combining it..... not pretending it doesnt exist.  John and Ed are leaving Disney in the dust..... making sure Pixar is positioned for the future, while WDFA is left in a time warp. The fact that people like Chris Sanders and Glenn are not really being heard by John is an example of this.  Pixar needs to embrace the talent at WDFA, not throw it out in favor of its own position.  Disney acquired Pixar...... it is looking like Pixar acquired Disney.  Maybe it is time Disney takes the reigns back on who acquired who, and start being the leader again..... in tech integration and reminding people that motion capture is NO SUBSTITUTE for a great animator and actor.

supersally: totally agree with everything you said. Especially these statements:

"John and Ed are leaving Disney in the dust..... making sure Pixar is positioned for the future, while WDFA is left in a time warp."

and

"Disney acquired Pixar...... it is looking like Pixar acquired Disney."

(little notice: I don't think WDFA wants the motion capture thing like you said, but Dick Cook wants it)

dont have time to hand animate a cartoon? Do it on the computer.

dont have time to animate on the computer? Use motion capture.

Slowly. Machines are taking over the world. Be very scared.

The big problem is that people like Dick Cook are running the business of WDFA.... men like that with no idea what it really takes to animate a film.  And, rather than actually using people like Glenn Keane and Chris Sanders to garner information from and appoint them to positions of authority to call some shots, they are just giving the line to John and Ed.  Come on!!! Glen and Chris should all those shots at WDFA, too!! They've earned their rights to direct the studio and have the input to guide as well as a John L. or Ed!  

  Iger should start listening to its talent in house, and take that into account in dealing with Pixar.  Glenn is AMAZING and can animate the Pixar guys under the table.... and Chris is a tremendous talent.... an amazing mentor, and a person with great vision.

  Why WDFA throws those guys out with the bathwater is wayyyyy beyond my comprehension and is foolish!! My guess is that John likes to be king of the castle and there is no room for other great artists with vision to be in the castle, too.  Cultivating different visions is what made WDFA great in the past.  

  Machines can not act and they can not do what a great, trained, animator/actor can do.

John Carter, Warlord of Mars!!!!!!!!!!!

If they can get it to look like a Frank Frazetta painting I'm in.

It's enough that Rapunzel has been removed from the Shrek copycat image. Pixar should just let Disney finish whatever they got cooking in the CGI kettle before calling it quits. What they got in-store for Rapunzel sounds very exciting, and could at least go out as a non-coincidental triumph for Disney CGI. We're willing to wait a bit for traditional animation to return, as long as they keep their promise.

This is good news.  Complaining that this deal might negatively impact WDFA just goes to show how weak that division of the company really is.  I for one am glad that the director of Who Framed Roger Rabbit is back in the Mouse House.  For years, Zemeckis has been known for using special effects/new tech in order to tell worthwhile stories, serving the message and the medium concurrently.  The problem that Disney faces has nothing to do with the medium.  They have the money and the inclination (currently) to be the front runner of animation in all its forms.  The problem lies with the message.  Disney needs talented storytellers.  Zemeckis knows story.  Lassetter knows story.  Based upon the last decade of films, WDFA does not know story.  And I don't suspect this will change any time soon.  When Chicken Little was about to be released, people looked the other way hoping that A Day With Wilbur Robinson would be better.  Doesn't look that way.  Now people are looking to Enchanted or Repunzel or A Frog Princess for hope.  Good luck with that.  I just don't see it panning out.  The Movie Surfers clip of Enchanted left me cold (especially the quality of the animation: not up to classic Disney standards yet).  Repunzel has been plagued by story problems from its inception (and most likely still is, hence no green light) but it looks great!.  And a Frog Princess sounds like a mess (based on the cast sheet).  A jazz-loving European prince, voodoo priest, a cajun firefly, a jazz-singing aligator?  Huh?  What?  But they're rushing it into production, so hopefully the story is there.  On the other hand, Disney has created their first African American princess and she's a maid.  Could be inspired storytelling, but I hesitate to say what it's inspired by.

zuulrules: it's not Disney animation that is in Enchanted; James Baxter Studios animation.

Mocap isn't a bad thing, it's just something that needs to be used tastefully.  Fantastic for not just Gollum and Kong, but Davy Jones and other FX as well.

Great choice for realistic FX, particularly in a live action movie.  Lousy choice if you want an animation/cartoon feel.

Mocap gives you something that, done right, moves like a real human.  The question is whether that's what you want for a particular film.

I'm still waiting for Disney to pull the Multi Plane Camera out of moth balls and use that instead of computers for 2D animation.  But, C'est la vie.

I enjoyed both "The Polar Express" and "Monster House," but there is something a little creepy to me about motion capture films. The characters move more like people than animated characters. I know animation has often strived for realism, but when it is too real, it's weird. I don't mind this deal or even Disney switching to 2-D again. However, I don't think they should tinker with "Rapunzel." The images I've seen look amazing and I heard that John Lassater was very impressed with it so far. It would be a shame to have it further delayed and re-tooled as a 2D feature. But having Disney animated films become an event again would be nice. Maybe then they will be more selective with what films they make and the market won't be flooded with films that probably would never have been approved during Walt's days.

Those who use motion capture as a starting point will succeed.  The problem with polar express is in the faces.  They look like Final Fantasy.  Just messed up.  Bad lip synchronization is the worst problem.  That is easily fixed by a combination of animator and mocap.  Hopefully Disney can fix Zemeckis' horrible facial work.  Then I think they will produce some real watchable movies...  

I wish they'd go back and fix Polar Express too, because that movie is going to really look like crap in a few years.  The direct to video guys probably will.... It'd be a cheap buck.

It's an insult to say that Dick Cook has "no idea what it really takes to animate a film." I first met Dick Cook in 1979. Guess where he worked? Walt Disney Productions, in the Buena Vista Distribution Company. Guess what their key "event" films were? Animated features. (I met him as BVDC was test-running the first Technirama 70 engagement of "Sleeping Beauty" in 20 years, to great public response.) Even if Dick wore earplugs and a blindfold to work, he'd have an expert's knowledge of animation, and trust me, Dick don't wear earplugs and a blindfold.

Great animator does not always equal great director.  

Where did everyone get the tickets for sneak previews of Rapunzel ?

"John better not touch a frame..." So someone with a track record of producing and directing successful animated movies - get him out of here? You'd rather have executives with little or no background in animation giving notes? Thought that's what we were fighting to get rid of.

Too bad the internet wasn't around in the 30's - "wow Walt just threw out Kimball's entire soup eating sequence in Snow White - can't believe he'd touch what that master animator did." Sometimes story does overrule pretty pictures.

zuulrule... haha, it makes me laugh actually, how you said

"And a Frog Princess sounds like a mess (based on the cast sheet).  A jazz-loving European prince, voodoo priest, a cajun firefly, a jazz-singing aligator?  Huh?  What?  But they're rushing it into production, so hopefully the story is there."

Makes me kind of laugh, because these guys were the ones who made The Little Mermaid and a bunch of other great films. It's really funny, because, umm... Well. write down the cast of that film, and tell me if it sounds wonderful? or normal atleast. haha. oh dumb zuul, haha, that sounds so nerdy anyway

= I've heard alot of money has been put into "Rapunzel" has it not? Taking this back to the drawing board to turn it into a traditional animation film would probably delay it, we'd probably never see the light of day for it. =  

Isn't that what happened to Pinocchio?  According to story if that didn't happen we would have never met Jiminy Cricket.

As for the whole "event movie" thing, it sucks that many people stand to lose their jobs but I'm sure they'll (hopefully) select out only the cream of the crop which will be beneficial in the end if they wish to regain the elite status they once had.  Sure, it'll make it much tougher for aspiring animators such as myself to get in but, I would imagine it's SUPPOSE to be tough.  What do you think looks better on a resume or makes for a better story to tell people:  "I worked on Sleeping Beauty"  or  "I worked on the straight-to-DVD Sleeping Beauty III - The Spindle's Revenge?"  The release of a new Disney feature used to be a celebration.  Hopefully it will be once again.

As for the motion capture, I have to agree with the "I don't like it" crowd.  I've always hated the way it looks.  I'm sure this sounds weird but it looks TOO real.  Animation is suppose to be an IMMITATION of life.  Not life itself.  And now we're just gonna use computers to it.  Why even call it animation anymore?  Sure, it's "moving" but you may as well just be tracing.  TRACERS!!!

If this means no more sequels I'll call it a good move. Animation is changing and Disney needs to respond. It will be nice to see some experimentation instead of stagnation.

Saikou Menji, good thing the "sequel" age of Disney is nigh-over, otherwise you could've given someone a good idea with the "Splindles Revenge."

Anyways, I hope that Rapunzel is remade into a traditional animated film. I personally have grown ridiculously tired of CG films, and I want to see some trad-animation.

And as for Disney needing to "accept" technology... I don't think there's any problem with CG (mo-cap, on the other hand, can be weird) but I don't think they should completely disregard the thing they did so well for so many years.

Saikou Menji said:

= I've heard alot of money has been put into "Rapunzel" has it not? Taking this back to the drawing board to turn it into a traditional animation film would probably delay it, we'd probably never see the light of day for it. =  

"Isn't that what happened to Pinocchio?  According to story if that didn't happen we would have never met Jiminy Cricket."

But that already happened to Rapunzel. Thanks to the shakeup, we won't be seeing any annoying "Shrek" jokes once it's done.

The issue now is which MEDIUM will be used for the film. Glen Keane has already gone full speed ahead with a visual style inspired by a French painting and a new CGI technique that's supposed to give it the feel of a hand-drawn environment. This is an experiment on Disney's behalf that Lasseter doesn't seem to fully understand. Which is shameful, because as I've been saying all along, the two fields can CO-EXIST, operating parallel or together, rather than against each other.

I am banging my head against the wall.

I think the issues have been discussed in articles here, and I know they're discussed in these comments:

The motion capture is awful. Terrible. The characters in these movies look like zombies. They fall squarely in the Uncanny Valley (google it if you don't know), which is just creepy and disturbing.

Animation is supposed to be the work of the artist. Personality comes from the movements. If we simply let actors take control of this... what are we gaining by digitalizing it instead of just making a live-action film?

What would Bugs Bunny have been like if he'd been motion captured?

Motion capture works wonderfully for many videogames because they are striving to look as realistic as possible.

Animated films aren't. The character isn't in realism, it's in the quirks of the animators.

Polar Express came out in 2004.  The motion capture work on it started most likely in 2002-2003.  That's 4-5 years from now.  It will be 6-8 years before any new John Carter (YEAH!) movie comes out.  I think they have had and will have plenty of time to improve the medium.  It's amazing how many people are already condemning it.

curmudgeon said: "Great animator does not always equal great director.  Where did everyone get the tickets for sneak previews of Rapunzel ? "

Heh-- beats me!  Keane has never directed before.  He's only written once before-- and that was the story for Pocahontas.  I'm not going to trust his stuff before I see it.

"I think they have had and will have plenty of time to improve the medium. It's amazing how many people are already condemning it."

We're condemning it on principle, which means no improvements can save it.

It flies in the face of what makes animation special.

What I don't understand is I thought Disney Co. was hemorrhaging money all over the place -- and they have no qualms investing in Zemeckis' "performance-capture studio"?

Granted, this is a new technology and it's not such a bad move getting in with it on the ground-floor... but it just seems like Disney Co. is sticking its fingers in too many pies without even knowing the flavors.

When Walt applied Technicolor to "Flowers and Trees", color wasn't the focus but an enhancement of an already well-executed Silly Symphony.  I find it so regrettable that as charming a story as POLAR EXPRESS was, Zemeckis seemed more excited about the technology and "rushing" it out -- even though it looked creepy.

To the comment that said that motion capture is being condemmed before developed, I would like to point you back to history.

 Motion Capture is just rotoscoping in 3D.  Like the dead, souless forms that you get when tracing from a photo and playing it back, motion capture is the exact same thing in 3D.  People who talk about this as a new medium dont know their history of animation and "why" things look dead rotoscoped.  Read the Illusion of Life section on the use of reference.  It is all there, why this is a problem.

 Secondly, regarding Dick Cook.... for those of you who believe that the suites truly understand what the artists are going for and doing, you are extremely naive!!  Dick Cook is looking at the bottom line dollars..... not the quality..... how to get the most money out of the film... not the quality of how it gets done and making something a classic. Walt Disney was both an artist and visionary...... he wanted the quality and artistry of the project to transcend just the amount of money it made.  Today's WDFA is being run by suits..... not artists.  That is the problem and the artists are not being listened too.  Lasseter doesnt care about the artists at WDFA guys.....he doesnt know them...... he cares about maintaining Pixar clout and keeping his guys employed.  It is terribly sad in every way.

  Animators, like artists, make choices about their work..... they choose the best, most economical way of making a statement.... to find the soul and clarity of what their character and its thinking.  The choice, the economy..... the most potent way of conveying character is the thing that misses in both 3D (mo capture) and 2D rotoscoping.  Several artists can be drawing the same model, but will all choose different things to emphasize in their drawing..... that is the choice that make a great animator so much more potent and powerful than any data capture device.

Also, 80% of the emotion read of a character is in the posing NOT the face!!  Good posing, good draftsmanship, good choice in gesture makes a character come to life.  Mo cap makes no choice.... selects no keys, selects no pose and pushes it to maximize meaning.  

 The rule at Disney is: "good posing will save lousy facial, but bad poses with decent facial will never work"

 Glen Keane says:  "the animators job is to not make drawings that move, but drawings that MOVE THE AUDIENCE."

 Mocap and rotoscope ill never make those decisions.  End of story....

<< supersally said:  Also, 80% of the emotion read of a character is in the posing NOT the face!!  Good posing, good draftsmanship, good choice in gesture makes a character come to life . . .  Mocap and rotoscope will never make those decisions.  End of story.... >>

But as you pointed out, an animator can improve on the captures, can't they?  As they did with King Kong and Gollum?

Even then, it seems the animator is cuffed to working within the gestures of the "ping-ponged" actor -- rather than bringing their own sense of movement to the character.

At this point, it doesn't seem the cost justifies the use.  Isn't it more efficient to just hire some actors like they did in the "old days", have the animators study their movements then add their own touch to it in the drawings?  It seems all mo-cap is doing at this point is creating a really expensive and limited "middle-man".

Some good points.  I would like to say, however, that strong character performances of Gollum are not mo capped, but hand animated with the animators acting.  Tho it isnt widly acknowledged, it is the truth. Doing Gollum was no different than the way we do other traditional character animation.  You start with the dialogue track, then you might review some video reference of the actor saying the line.  That is just the first step off point.  Ultimately, in order for the animator to bring the character to life, the acting has to be reconstituted and developed thru the animator.  If the animator cant act it, they cant feel it, and if you cant feel it, you cant animate it.  Gollum may be rendered more realistically than other animated characters, but he was, in fact, done the old fashioned, traditionally approached method for acting any character in an animated feature, cg or otherwise.  

If animation isn't about delivering the best performance possible using any means possible, than what is it about? If it can be done via mo-cap (and I thought the results in Polar Express and Monster House were impressive), then who cares how it's done? Complaining about how the animation was done is as silly as complaining about whether a film is 3-D or 2-D...it's all technology, and what matters isn't the technology.

Would like to make a few points here, as I find this subject very interesting.

"Motion Capture is not animation. I sadly suspect that it will end up like some parasite that slowly but surely eats away at legitimate animation until it has driven it to extinction. REAL artists and animators see Mo Cap for what it is - a pretender to the throne. It is only praised by the clueless unwashed masses, as well as the penny-pinching studio execs and accountants who see it as a way of producing something that resembles animation cheaply and quickly, yet doesn't require all those pesky animators to create it. Only a few clean-up animators are needed to do some superficial tweaking of the resulting images, but they can't do much more than polish the turd."

Well, I see what you're saying, but the truth is: everything can be viewed as "art". A lot of hand-drawn animation uses "motion capture" to an extent as well(Disney included). Personally, how do I think it looks? Well, I actually loved the animation in "The Polar Express"(I feel it puts the animation in "The Incredibles to shame), and loved the movie as well(in fact, I strongly believe the story itself has more "Disney magic" of something like say "The Incredibles"), it's a great movie and is destined to become a Christmas classic. Can't say the same about Monster House though. The story sucked, and the animation was 100% ugly(they tried to "stylise" the animation for complainers of TPE, and I felt it failed).

"I just don't see what the point of it is? Why invest in motion capture when you could just make real-life movies, or animated movies? I...I'm honestly confused."

I think the point is this: it's easier to film than live-action as you don't need sets and props and actual locations, and it's easier than animation as you don't need to design the characters. The reason is sadly more financial than artistic, but at least it's a reason.

"The truth is the American public is STILL smart enough to recognize a turd for a turd. There may have been a time when they were suckered in by CGI's slick appearance, but that time has passed. People just want good movies. Period."

Well, if people want "good movies" why do Adam Sandler comedies and action blockbusters for examples top the charts? Also your forgetting, Shrek is not a good movie, and that franchise is doing well. I feel the same way about "Finding Nemo", which I don't really think it good.

People don't really want to see "good movies" really. A lot of critic's darlings and "Best Picture nominees" which are considered "good", people try to avoid.

"The problem is Disney has just flat-out made DISMAL films lately ... The only one squeezed in there of late that was good was Lilo and Stitch (and even that wasn't GREAT). But they had a serious of complete stinkers that just KILLED their brand. I think they over-reacted a bit with the rush to bring in outside talent, but at least they recognized they had to shake things up."

Well, I'd choice "Lilo and Stitch" over the laughless(imo) Finding Nemo that's for sure. I also love "The Emperor's New Groove","Treasure Planet", "Brother Bear" and "Chicken Little". I know, we all have our own opinions. I agree, Disney is having problems recently, and have released some questionable films, but that shouldn't mean they're all bad films. People just like to give Disney a hard time.

Timon/Pumbaa Fan said: "Personally, how do I think it looks? Well, I actually loved the animation in "The Polar Express"(I feel it puts the animation in "The Incredibles to shame), and loved the movie as well(in fact, I strongly believe the story itself has more "Disney magic" of something like say "The Incredibles"), it's a great movie and is destined to become a Christmas classic."

Really?! Well, that just kind of proves the point we animation fans are making - that some of you folks just don't understand what constitutes real animation. "The Incredibles" is one of the most satisfying displays yet of CG animation, in that it perhaps comes closest to creating a look that complements the legacy of Disney hand-drawn animation. The poses and expressions really convey the thoughts and emotions of the characters, and ultimately this caricatured approach to the character design is vastly more aesthetically pleasing than the waxwork figures of "The Polar Express"! The whole point of animation as an artform is lost if one is merely trying to replicate live-action performers, and/or their movement. It is precisely reactions like yours that make me extremely concerned about the future of this once great craft.

A little history lesson: Disney used rotoscoping in nearly all it's films under Walt.

zuulrules said:

"On the other hand, Disney has created their first African American princess and she's a maid.  Could be inspired storytelling, but I hesitate to say what it's inspired by."

Cinderella is a maid who turned into a princess.  People of all races can be maids/household help.  I bet you're opposed to "Song of the South", too.

TikiBird73 said:

"I'm still waiting for Disney to pull the Multi Plane Camera out of moth balls and use that instead of computers for 2D animation."

Me, too.  That'd be swell.  The ballroom in "Beauty and the Beast", for example, can sometimes take away the feel of the film for me- sometimes, if I'm in a certain mood, I'll just focus on the computer-generated look and just focus on that.  It should seemlessly blend in, which it often doesn't.  Don't even get me started on the ship in "Return to Never Land".

PolyesterRage said:

"Anyways, I hope that Rapunzel is remade into a traditional animated film. I personally have grown ridiculously tired of CG films, and I want to see some trad-animation."

I like the look of traditionally animated films 100% more than CGI films.  Remember a few years ago when there were rumors of Michael Eisner wanting to remake the classic Disney films in CGI?  That's rediculous.  Mostly because these are classic films.  But also because these films were made.  Granted, "Rapunzel" hasn't been finished yet (heck, I don't know how far it's gotten), but, assuming they'd keep the same story and all, they'd have to "transpose" the CGI scenes directly into 2D scenes.  It just sounds like a waste of resources.  I am glad that it's not "Unbraided" anymore.  I wouldn't have liked that too much.

supersally said:

"Lasseter doesnt care about the artists at WDFA guys.....he doesnt know them...... he cares about maintaining Pixar clout and keeping his guys employed."

That's one of my biggest complaints about Lasseter running a huge chunk of Disney (WDFA & WDI).  I don't know the guy, but there's a big chance that he's biased.  How could he not be?  I don't know if he quit Disney or got fired, but he left and had success with Pixar.  He loves Pixar.  I'm sure he had fun and learned during his time with Disney, but his priority is Pixar.  I can't see him having Disney be as high a concern as Pixar is.  Which means that he shouldn't be in charge.  If I had my way, especially if and when "Rapunzel" shows us Mr. Keane's talents besides being an animator (and one-time story man), then Mr. Keane would be in charge of WDFA.  Or someone besides Mr. Lasseter.  How about Mr. Floyd Norman?  He cares about Disney.  Bring back executives who care about Disney!!!

craigdvc said:

"A little history lesson: Disney used rotoscoping in nearly all it's films under Walt."

For example, when Aurora dances, it looks like an animated character dancing.  It doesn't look too "real".  Human figures are hard to draw, and they wanted some fluidity and naturalish movements- compare "The Goddess of Spring" to other Disney heroines.  If the animators could have practiced more with the rotoscoping (yes, I know, that would have cost more money), then their practice would make them used to drawing human movements more fluidly, and they might not have had to use the rotoscoping in the actual films.  Just my opinions.

<<craigdvc:  a little history lesson: Disney used rotoscoping in nearly all it's films under Walt.>>

You're right.  For the human characters and mostly as a guideline for full-body movements.  But as blackcauldron pointed out, the animators were in complete control of the "flair" and facial expressions.  They didn't simply trace.

I think Mo-Cap has great potential, but only if traditional aspects of animation are drawn into it.  To call Mo-Cap animation is as false as calling the Multi-Plane camera or Roto-scope animation.  It's a means to that end, but not the end itself.  

Animating doesn't mean to just bring motion to something, but interest, spirit, vigor, and "life" as well.    Tricks as simple as "squash and stretch" and other "plausible impossibles" do just that.  

<<Timon / Pumbaa fan said:  It's easier to film than live-action as you don't need sets and props and actual locations, and it's easier than animation as you don't need to design the characters.>>

You're right, sets, props, locations aren't required, but it's not any "easier" to anyone except maybe the director who has more control of scenes and shots and even performance.

I haven't heard a single actor express delight with the mo-cap or blue/green screen process -- in fact, for them, it's harder because of the static environment.  It's hardest on the producers' pocketbook who could shoot two/three "low budget" live-action films for the price of one Imagemotion film.

<<Timon / Pumbaa fan said:  People don't really want to see "good movies" really. A lot of critic's darlings and "Best Picture nominees" which are considered "good", people try to avoid.>>

All I can say to this is that what's considered "good" by the critics and the Academy is out of touch with the public.  It's happened a number of times in Hollywood's past.  During the Depression.  During the counter-culture.

People like Adam Sandler because he makes people laugh -- as Chaplin and the Marx Bros. and Lucille Ball made people laugh.  Most people don't care to see "deep" issues unless there's entertainment thrown in for good measure.  Most people don't have a taste for avant-garde.  But they do want to see "good" movies and they want to be told "good" stories.  It's up to the filmmakers to figure out how to tell them.  Not the audience.

In the 40s, everyone said the public could care less for Shakespeare.  That they were too "ignorant" to appreciate the bard.  Laurence Olivier produced HENRY V to such a scale, the audiences came.  It's all in the presentation.

Good grief.  Too bad they didn't realize the potential of keeping 2D around three years ago, when Stainton made the completely boneheaded decision to close down the Florida 2D studio at Disney and fired all the animators there.  

Ho-hum...

I don't see any harm resulting from this Disney/Zemeckis contract.  I am more concerned about Rapunzel, as my love for its concept and CGI tests deepens every day.  As everyone else, I deeply, deeply hope Lasseter doesn't modify it in any way, but I can't help feeling downhearted. ;(

I would very much appreciate if Mr. Jim Hill manages to scrounge up some news on this animted film's fate.  Not knowing exactly what's going to happen to it is eating away at my insides...

I'd love to see a Jim Hill article dedicated solely to this up coming film, containing news on its most recent developements.

Have you guys read the new stuff laseter and cook said today? hopefully you have, i have more faith in laseter letting rapunzel and american dog move on now. since they have declared their bringing back 2d to disney, but won't keep it as an exclusive medium for either of the Disney or pixar ppl. yay! means rapunzel will rule!

Didn't Catmull say it? That's what I read. But still, he was pretty vague about it all. So, if he meant that it will not be an exclusive medium, than YEAAHHH.. But hey, I'm not forgetting that it is still Catmull & Lasseter in charge there, so I'm keeping every option open and am still sceptical.

yes, very true, empoor, but i'm also wondering. In the article I read, it also said that Chris Sanders has recently left disney. And I was just so sad when I read that. Apparently, there would be something to prove that story true, but I'm still not sure though. ya know. sometimes ppl mix words up. i read he left, but I dont' want him to have. Dang it, i hope he didn't and i believe that rapunzel will most likely let live its glorious cg format, because think about it. they've already spent so much money on it, and while disney did take back production on pinnochio, it was because the art wasn't acceptable, and neither was story, and well, i've read rapunzel's first act is supposed to be a beauty, American dog will be amazing, it'll be fun. I can't wait, and so will Rapunzel, toy story 3 too! Sanders, I love, I hope he didn't leave, and as for Hanh, I hope its  just another Disney hiatus, and not a complete exit.. heres hoping for the best! now back to that ap hisotry

Chris Sanders LEFT :|?! OMG.. Things are starting to look more worse everyday for/at WDFA.. Damn it.. I'm starting to get %#$#%& again.. How in hell does one glorious studio come to this point (well bad management decisions, but still.. must be more to it.) blackcauldron85, you said "put Keane in charge", and at first I was like "hmmm.. don't know", but now I'm saying "hell yeah!" It may be not entirely right to say ('cause we don't every details of all these actions), but I'm starting to believe Catmull and Lasseter should be bumped back to managing only Pixar, and WDFA should get it's own president/chairman. Too bad Roy [Disney] is only a Director Emeritus now..

(What I just realized was that we usually say that artists should be managing studio's, but isn't Lasseter an artist?)

empoor said:

" but I'm starting to believe Catmull and Lasseter should be bumped back to managing only Pixar, and WDFA should get it's own president/chairman. Too bad Roy [Disney] is only a Director Emeritus now..

(What I just realized was that we usually say that artists should be managing studio's, but isn't Lasseter an artist?)"

I agree.  Disney should have separate management- with the interests of Disney at hand.  Upper executives will be the link between the two.  I wish Roy Disney would have a bigger role- he once saved animation, and he still should!  

And, I don't think of John Lasseter as an artist.  He manages artists.  I don't think we'll see his name in the credits of a Pixar film under "animation".  Correct me if I'm wrong!

Let's see if I follow this:   Lassetter is only loyal to Pixar, cause that's where he came from.  So Eisner did such a lousy job at Disney because all the while he was loyal to Paramount - ok I can see that (wink). Katzenberg isn't loyal to Dreamworks - because he was at Paramount and Disney first. Iger only pushes an ABC agenda, because that's the division he came from. Zemeckis will take all the best ideas over to Universal. How do you folks ever hope to have a career? "I'm sorry we can't hire you here at Disney Co, since your resume shows your first job was at McDonald's, and your first priority should be Disney."    

Unlike most Disney executives, Lassetter is not here to advance his career and pad his resume - he had a great job as unofficial king of Pixar. You've got a true Disney and animation fan trying to improve the company - the few things he's been allowed to do so far have revived the company's traditions of quality - and all he gets is threats not to touch unfinished WDFA projects. Pixar has a strong track record of characterization and story that leads to box office success. Sadly WDFA has recently lost its way. A little Pixar tutoring seems to be in order.

Does computer animation solve everything and guarantee success ? no   Does mo-cap solve everything and guarantee success? no  Have Pixar and Lassetter had some success at the box office? yes   Has Zemeckis and his team had some success at the box office? yes    That's how the movie business works - a studio tries to associate itself with individuals, groups, or companies that have had previous success, hoping that they (and the studio) will have successes in the future. Just signing up a computer animation firm doesn't solve anything - example Vanguard's "Valiant." Signing Zemeckis doesn't solve everything either - but there are a lot of people in Hollywood that wouldn't mind working for Zemeckis.

If you haven't had a chance to talk to Lassetter yourself, he will be on Sunday Morning Shootout this Sunday on AMC - usually airs at noon. I predict he'll be one of the few executives interviewed that will not use phrases like "skill set" and "earnings ratio."

@ curmudgeon: You're forgetting that Lasseter was FIRED.. And the comparisons you're making have nothing to do with WDFA-Pixar-Lasseter. Paramount wasn't bought by Disney, and Michael Eisner didn't become CEO through that takeover. Pixar WAS, and Lasseter was bumped into the job of "saving WDFA" because thanks to the takeover/merger he was now a Disney Co. employee. So your first block of text isn't comparable with this situation.

And I still believe he has a grudge against WDFA because of the whole situation of him going around his superiors at WDFA and getting fired over that. And he will always be a Pixar fan boy, no matter what he says or other people say about him. When he needs to choose between WDFA and Pixar he will most definitely choose Pixar. And that is why there should be separate animation presidents, so that there isn't an all Pixar team in control of animation (like now, with Catmull/Lasseter.)

@ blackcauldron85: no, I don't see him as an "animation artist" too, but as a director he is kinda an artist too. But I agree with your statement, "he manages artists."

If John Lasseter is smart (and I would like to believe he is), he will show Glen Keane some respect, and stay hands off on Rapunzel.  I'd hate to think Lasseter is buying into his own press.  

What do you think the chances are of Bob Iger concvincing Jeffrey Katzenberg to rejoin the Mouse as head of the studio? Do you think Katz would be interested, especially since Michael Eisner is history?  Would you want to see that happen(again)?

jeffrey katzenberg is dreamworks now, he's long gone now...

but anyway. On a high note. People COME ON!

BE HAPPY! Think about it this way. I am VERY SAD, that Chris Sanders has left the "House of Mouse," I loved Lilo & Stitch and hoped to see his next film, American Dog. But things happen, and well, John Lassetter does have a great track record.

I have to admit though. Lasseter is making it sound like he's favoring Pixar over everything. NOTHING is happening at Pixar, no layoffs, nothing. But truth be told, Disney might have had some bad artists in their fold. I think he's trying to weed out the bad bunch. I actually think he's doing something good for Disney.

You have to think of it this way too. Your in charge of the most legendary animation studio EVER, you have to make their films memorable, when The Little Mermaid came out, disney films only came out every two years, animated ones that is, and well, THEY ROCKED! I now see what Lassetter is trying to do. Think about it, he's returning Disney to their glory, and now with the awesome creators of that movie working on "The Frog Princess," things are extremely looking up.

People. CLEARLY FIXING DISNEY WASN'T GONNA BE A WALK IN THE PARK. I'M VERY SAD CHRIS LEFT. BUT DISNEY IS GOING TO RISE AGAIN. MIGHT NOT BE WITH "MEET THE ROBINSONS," BUT I BELIEVE THAT A GREAT FILM WHICH LASSETTER HAS HELPED WITH, AS WITH ALL OF THE PIXAR FILMS WILL BE A SMASH THAT WILL RETURN DISNEY TO ITS BETTER DAYS, LIKE AMERICAN DOG, I BELIEVE NOW THAT HE CHANGED DIRECTORS TRYING TO GET SOMETHING MORE, AND WE DON'T KNOW HOW THAT MOVIE WAS GOING, NOW DO WE? LET'S TRY AND NOT JUDGE TOO QUICK. Next year, American Dog comes out. Lasseter pulled a director from a Pixar film as well, "Ratatouille?" remember? yeah, and well, then we also have Wall-E next year, looking forward to that Toy Story 3 Trailer!!!!!!! And then the next year, we have Rapunzel from Disney and toy Story 3! Things look Great for Disney Animation's future! And hopefully! Just picture it, I could imagine 2010 as being the year we get two other anticipated movies, "The Frog Princess" & "The Incredibles 2" maybe? haha hopefully. But hey, let's try and have a positive outlook. things are on track... :0)

We make the highest technology motion capture system ever made, with the best data quality every, have all the animation software available, have talented artists, have any ATI board, or NVIDIA card out there, and I give talks on Motion capture and am somewhat of an expert. I tell people there are three things that are important to animation: Story, Story, and Story. While I love our technology, it doesn't make a weak story any better, or a mediocre actor good. It doesn't enable you to do a flying back kick just because you are wearing spandex. All it does is capture faithfully the motions the actor did. A good artist can take a piece of charcoal out of the fireplace and make you stare at the results. When word processors came out, the writers all decried that word processors took all the craftsmanship out of writing.

I've seen thousands of motion captures, and I'd say that the lessons the public is learning in "American Idol" or "So you think you can dance." are very telling. People don't have a good self rating mechanism. Until they spend more money on the writers, all the best motion capture technology can do is capture the painfully weak scene faithfully. Yes I've worn the suit. I can't act either. At least I know it!! :D