After the success of Klaus,Why do studios still think no one cares about hand drawn films?

It doesnt matter whether people care about them as long as 3D is cheaper and easier to make

I think it's more about computers being more efficient.

Disney used to not be about the money.

Attached: download (37).jpg (474x355, 30K)

The problem is always money. Passion projects are not a great target for investment, and animation needs a lot of money. Pablos was filthy rich, so he could open his own animation studio and sell Klaus to Netflix, but everyone else has to find investors somewhere else. Birdboy: The forgotten children (2015) is a great example. If you look at the opening credits there are 13 credited organisations, 3 of which are spanish government and EU subsidy organisations which subsidise arts in spain on a governmental level. The rest are production and animation companies which assisted with the making of the movie. Other production companies like Autour de Minuit even specialise in supporting "unique" artistic works, which translates to "will win awards but wont make any money". You have small sources of money which need to be pooled together so that you can pay the people making your shit.

So yes, maybe we are living in a resurgence of 2D passion projects. Americans seem to have had some success with online crowdfunding, but the amounts of money you really need to animate a 60 minute film is not realistically attainable for anyone else except those who already have some clout in the industry. Big companies are dumping a lot of money to create content for their streaming platforms, so there's hope. I just have my doubts that any company would write a blank check for a creator, like MTV did with Chung and Aeon Flux. That's where the good shit is.

It's cheaper, but we're talking about cell animation, not what I personally consider to be just glorified flash animation.
youtube.com/watch?v=covMqjmBrnc

It's a shame because disney as a corporation are the world leaders in animation technology. Pixar has had the technology that was used to make Klaus for a decade. They just stick to 3D because it makes so much money.

Recent Hand drawn films
>Ernest & Celestine budget: 10 million
>The Illusionist budget: 17 million
>Klaus Budget:21 million

Recent CGI films
>Minions budget:74 million
>How to train your dragon :165 million
>Frozen: 150 million

Attached: Unknown.jpg (262x192, 7K)

If that's true, why the everloving fuck do they only make shitty ass 3D movies
They look worse, have a worse plot and cost more? Why?!

Attached: 1582214806421.jpg (350x233, 17K)

It cannot make much money despite how good it is because people lost their taste of admiring 2D animations in theatres

Easier to reuse assets for inevitable sequels Maybe?

Getting around Animator Unions

False equivalency. A hand drawn movie or hybrid made by modern disney would not cost 10-21 million to make. Similarly the expectations for the profit margin would not be the same.

Ernest & Celestine had a budget of 8 million euro. It made 8.1 million in box office. The illusionist had a budget of 17 million and made 5.6 million, losing 10 million. We don't know the stats for Klaus since it was a netflix release, but I strongly doubt it made back the 20 million euro. Compare that to Big Hero 6, a relatively mediocre disney movie and not a big hit like frozen. It cost 165 million and made 650 million box office. The return on ads spent for disney is estimated to be 4.5x, so for every dollar spent on ads they made 4.5$. To get to 600 million dollars box office with ernest & celestine they would have to spend 133 million dollars on advertisement alone. This doesn't take into account other costs associated with large companies. Realistically the budget would be 100 million like it was with Princess and the Frog. So Disney would be spending 133 million dollars on marketing a 8 million dollar movie, and there's still no guarantee that people will actually go watch it.

The point is that when disney makes a movie there's a big difference if it costs to make 165 million or 170 million dollars. If hubrid costs more, then they will not do it. It's clear it does cost more, because they are not doing it. Taking the government subsidized budgets of indie european animations and standing them next to disney movie budgets is intellectually fraudulent.

It's almost like one studio's passion project that barely got a theatrical release at all, has NO relevance to how big budget studios see their animated films and have no reason to want to follow in its footsteps.

We had our chance to save 2D with Princess and the Frog, or maybe even Horse Show the movie or TTG

As it is right now, there is no future for hand drawn animation outside of television

Attached: 1541896349556.png (640x558, 71K)

See

So who is the one to blame?

the Toy Story pitch tells otherwise.

If Disney were still alive, he'd be all about pushing CGI as the way of the future.

Normies dont care about what art style its in, they just wanna consoom

>The man who was a self proclaimed capitalist, purposely told his animators to NOT follow the story of the source material in order for it sell more, and was feverishly against unions
>not about the money
What a load of horseshit.

Attached: 1576991799383.png (385x234, 122K)

yes

he was always about high tech

youtube.com/watch?v=kN-eCBAOw60

but he won't allow for a bad cgi that's for sure