Why Disney Doesn’t Make 2D Animated Movies Any More

toonboom.

They haven’t made a 2D animated film since Winnie the Pooh in 2011. How is this news?

>Screenrant

Attached: 92C228D7-B2EC-4FC1-9229-BEC8BF721F9D.png (1334x750, 1023K)

tldr version
>pixar and dreamworks were eating disney's lunch in the early 2000s with 3d in both quality and profit. Disney moved over to 3d in response
>3d has behind the scenes advantages in terms of production flexibility
All this has been pretty well known for a while if you're interested in animation. I can only assume this was written after a bunch of nostalgic people started googling it.

I think people should spend less time talking about what Gisnep does or doesn't do.

Aren't you getting tired of helming new saviors of 2D every year?
>Simpsons canon
Nobody gives a shit
>Bob's Burgers
Nobody gives a shit

The pendulum will no doubt swing back at some point. I don't think that CGI will ever go away, but I do think that there will come a balance between 2D and 3D releases at some point. And let's not forget that 2D films are still being made in Europe. I'm looking forward to Klaus on Netflix personally.

what

Bob's Burgers is a niche cartoon. It will do fine, but it won't reach beyond the existing fans of the show.
The second simpsons movie is a throwback, if it does well it won't be taken as anything but proof that there's still money to be squeezed out of the corpse.

One of the most bizarre things people commonly say in regards to this topic is that 2D is now too expensive. Like, its costs just somehow balloon over time for reasons that nobody can explain. Lion King may have been affordable back then, but now it would be way too expensive. Why? Who knows.

Kraus looks nice, but the story seems boring.

>le 2d animation dead becuse of two movies flopped excuse

Attached: 1964A099-0785-4F8D-B822-32F889CEB08C.jpg (259x194, 6K)

>Klaus
I'm turning Japanese, I think I'm turning Japanese, I really think so

Disney purposely wanted 2D to die. There’s a reason they released Winnie the Pooh on the same weekend as the last Harry Potter movie.

>Thoughts?
It's ogre.

Even weebshit is going full Dreamwerks:
youtube.com/watch?v=Uw7jrQQK3Mc

3D anime has existed for a long time and continues to be a small minority. Also, Japanese things can't be wannabe Japanese.

japan wants to take over the west again. The seiya movie flopped, but they keep getting better every year and actually trying.
They have the big names, is a matter of time.

The new Seiya was produced and sunk by some idiot Westerner, and the anime that's popular in the West is the same anime that was popular before: battle anime (2D).

>thoughts?
no, let's just skip to the actual reason
they're more expensive

But WHY are they supposed to be more expensive? What makes people constantly say this?

A part of me finds it amusing that people completely forgave them when Ryan George joined its crew.

This is a common misconception. They aren't cheaper in any meaningful way, what they are is more flexible.
It's possible to make significant changes to a 3d film pretty late in production, and it's less difficult/time consuming to do so.
The massive changes they made to frozen after hearing 'let it go' would have been impossible to do in 2d without pushing production back for years, hugely inflating costs, and fucking up the studios release plans.

or turnning Zootopia from a movie about animal dystopia into buddy comedy.

*buddy cop movie

Implying they won't be live action

3d animation is a lot more flexible and used (vidya, movies, presentations) than 2d is, driving up the costs of 2d. this in turn makes people less likely to learn 2d over 3d, which lowers job demand for 2d, which encourages people to take up 3d over 2d, and so on...

I am not even sure disney has the talent still to make quality 2d films.

what was the last relevant nonjap 2d film

Attached: fornito.jpg (288x288, 18K)

Not sure I follow. The greater flexibility and use of 3D drives up the cost of 2D--why? Less people learning 2D lowers demand for 2D animators, but wouldn't that increase demand since there's a personnel shortage?

This is mostly correct, but mind you Disney only did that in the U.S. The film released earlier in the U.K.

This is about the Disney animated canon, not the show's canon.
>Eric Goldberg says otherwise.
>This is not a corpse, Disney knows that normies want a 2D movie for years now and doing canon features off of TV shows is the only way at this point to make more 2D films, plus we got them because Mary Poppins Returns did well enough in the box office to get them in the first place.

The Satellite Girl and the Milk Cow, a South Korean film.

Attached: MV5BMWVmY2JlZTAtMTQ5Mi00YmMyLTk1YTMtMzVkNmVhMTZlNDcyXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyODA4ODIwNDM@._V1_.jpg (1500x2123, 641K)

Their marketing for The Princess and the Frog was also horrible. At this point, Disney has enough money to gamble on one more 2D animated movie.

It made 3 times it's budget, it did fine.

>canon
>in almost purely episodic stories
Irrelevant.

Kind of remember reading about Katzenberg's frustration over not being able to edit a 2D animated film after working with live-action movies.
I know he was gone by then but I wouldn't be suprised if someone had the same mentality.

Uhhh...
disney.fandom.com/wiki/Disney_Animated_Canon

It's assumed in Hollywood that the marketing budget is the same as the production budget. If so, it made only a small profit.

I think the real issue is that 2d animation is kind of a dying artform.

I also think that most adults are very hesitant to watch a 2d film in theaters as its seen as immature kid stuff. For example, I don't know anyone over the age of 30 that had any positive opinion about spiderverse, when those same people thought movies like The Meg were excellent movies.

This and also 3D is more franchise friendly when it comes to reusing assets.

The Breadwinner?

Getting around Unions

People don't like them. Look at Princess and the Frog. I love them but most people like the ugly computer medium. Especially kids. It's flashy. Fast.

Spiderverse is 3D.

But why

Attached: FaceUp.png (907x985, 469K)

Haha, keep dreaming.

>For example, I don't know anyone over the age of 30 that had any positive opinion about spiderverse, when those same people thought movies like The Meg were excellent movies.
That points towards a small hope that animation might be less stigmatised in the future, when the generations moves forwards.

Possibly bad news for 2D if today's kids can't comprehend a handdrawn feature film.

Hmm good point

Both are ugly. Why people watch that stuff and pretend it's funny is beyond me.

Current Disney is in the hospital with the incurable slow takeover of the SJW virus which results in the destruction of art.

Pretty sure the next generation will have just as much stigma towards animated films as the current one does. Especially with animated films going by the wayside ever more. REALISTIC doesn't contribute much to people actually wanting to see things animated.

I believe the budget that's listed on Wikipedia or where ever is normally the production budget and does not include marketing. $10 million isn't anywhere near enough, even Ghibli movies were something like $30 million.

When you have a question for why a problem exists, they can all be drawn to one thing:

Liberals.

Just, Liberals.

Very little is spent on the actual movie itself for Princess and the Frog ($10 million dollars out of $105 million dollars), most of it were just bloated paychecks towards the voice cast and marketing in over 100+ countries.

A hospital made of solid gold maybe.

you can do frame by frame animation in Animate/Flash with no tweening
and ain't no way Animate/Flash is cheap. Animate/Flash costs like 30 fucking dollars

Another Santa story. Gee so exciting.
Usually I endure anime style animation for interesting imagination, this has neither.

Nah. Maybe Korea.

Meg was awesome. Need more movies like that again.

onemillionmoms.com/current-campaigns/disney-blindsides-families-with-lesbian-scene-in-toy-story-4/

Disney and most studios includes marketing, only Dreamworks doesn't count it, also out of the $30 million Ghibli spends on their movies only $5 million is spent on the actual movie itself and the rest is 100% marketing, no Ghibli film passed the $5 million production budget (except for The Tale of the Princess Kaguya which out of it's $49 million dollar budget only $8 million was spent on the actual movie itself strictly because it was over 2 hours long).

Sources?

>release Fantasia 2000, Lilo and Stitch, Atlantis, Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, Home on the Range, Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh
>All of these make less money than the very first Ice Age movie.
No yeah I'm sure it was just that every one of those movies are more milquetoast and forgettable than fucking Shark Tale. They wanted 2D to die, of course, that's why they made so many of them with such variation and diversity in plots, stories, and genre.

If only they'd made a horror 2D movie, the fools!

The Simpsons Movie 2 & The Bob's Burgers Movie will change that.

>Not just using open-sourced programs or pirating it and buying one copy to justify you totes had the program
This is Hollywood we're talking about here.

Where the hell are you getting this from? This is all wrong.

No it's right, that info came from people who worked on these films and when you released that the humongous budgets are nothing but marketing & distribution in over 100+ countries and bloated pay checks for celebrities you release how little is spent on the actual movie itself.

Live action on the other hand is much more closer when you compare advertised budget vs how much money was actually spent on the movie itself, much smaller gap.

>that info came from people who worked on these films

Alright I'm gonna sit back and watch you try to actually prove this, you have an interview or something that has literally anyone saying 'Yeah this amount includes the marketing budget' when literally every single other production cost listing doesn't do that?

>Live action on the other hand is much more closer when you compare advertised budget vs how much money was actually spent on the movie itself, much smaller gap.

Okay just to help you out here, Ghostbusters for instance had a 144 million PRODUCTION budget, but a 150 million MARKETING BUDGET, which meant that after all of it they needed to make 300 million to break even, and here's an actual source hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-box-office-loss-sequel-unlikely-918515 to show what that means.

Princess and the Frog cost 105 million to PRODUCE, not market, that's a completely different budget.

>that info came from people who worked on these films
So you have sources then?

>and bloated pay checks for celebrities
That's part of the production budget. Actors need to be paid, whether they're famous or not.

>and bloated pay checks for celebrities

Chris Evans got paid $150,000 for Captain America:The First Avenger. How much are you under the impression the voicework of Anika Noni Rose is worth?

remember when people were saying that the pony cartoon was gonna sway positive opinion towards 2d movies?

What makes you think one movie and a sequel to two tween animated family sitcoms are gonna do?

Columbia is not Disney, Disney like with Japanese studios like Ghibli has both the production budget and marketing budget as the same batch of cash (in Princess and the Frog it's $105 million for everything and only $10 million was spent on the actual movie itself).

You have no sources for these claims, so maybe it's time to stop making them.

>Disney like with Japanese studios like Ghibli has both the production budget and marketing budget as the same batch of cash

PROVE IT.

Around $2-5 million.
That horse show was at best a internet cult following, Simpsons on the other hand is as mainstream as you can get.

Bob's Burgers also has more fans then that horse show too.

>DUDE DISNEY KILLED 2D!
>IT WAS A CONSPIRANCY LMAO
God this board is filled with brainlets and underages. Late 90s and the 2000s were full of 2D flops. Most of the movies of every important studio failed. Even Looney Tunes related projects flopped. The current state of 2D animation is the result of over two decades of failures.

Attached: 14380685702.jpg (357x402, 14K)

Those quotes came from people who worked on these movies, you stop making up BS thats not true.

2D will never beat 3D

Attached: 2D vs 3D.jpg (1000x1421, 1012K)

Where is the source for those quotes and what BS have I made up?

>Around $2-5 million.

So around the entirety to more than double her entire net worth, for a voice acting role, when she hadn't had a starring hit in her entire career.

Where the fuck are you getting this information and why, oh god why, do you think that she's getting paid more than Hawkeye did for the first Avengers movie?

>Those quotes

What quotes? Where? From who!? You keep saying it, so post them! Post the quotes from the people and link where they said it. This isn't hard, clearly, since other people can post links to things, so what's stopping you?

It isn't this simple. Disney is too rich to make 2D films.

The amount of money and the amount of time people spend on entertainment each year is finite. So the various studios are really battling for market share, not necessarily profit per film. A modern 2D film would probably cost about $20~40 million. Compared to the budget of a Disney/Pixar film, that's the equivalent of 4~8 2D films per 1 3D film. Assuming they release 3 animated films per year, that's comparable to flooding the market with 12~24 2D films. They literally can't spend money fast enough with 2D.

like how the teen titans go movie changed things?