Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Lasseter to bring back Feature and Short Classic Disney 2D Hand Drawn Animation!?!?!?!

Hey folks, Harry here... You ever have a morning, where you're deep in sleep... having a dream so mundane that you're just kinda putting off waking up just out of a general sense of Sunday laziness... when suddenly whilst dancing in your ID, you feel the real world shift and the most wonderful face in the world is staring you right in the eyes, and in that 1/10th of a second between surprise and an out-pouring of love, you kiss and cuddle the morning to noon.

Then, you get up, take that morning shower and the water feels so good, you begin singing goofy songs in the shower and you're just happy as could be. Ya dress in bright colors because you just feel that good. You grab your favorite Yoplait Yogurt out of the fridge (cherry) because you feel so good about losing about 7 inches and it just feels like the most perfect way to start the day, and then you sign online and you get this email...

I’m just curious if you guys have seen the events of late…

Disney buys Pixar!!!

John Lasseter named Chief Creative for Pixar/Disney and Imagineering and then cleans house!!!

Toy Story 3 shuttered!!!

Walt’s stolen cartoon traded for a sports broadcaster!!!


It’s like the early 90’s there is hope for feature animation once again. Disney could quite possibly mean quality again in the not to distant future.

I’m just so giddy I want to shout from the rooftops, so there it is.


Now sure... Most of this is old news... and that latest story is something that I think we were all suspecting as being a possiblity. I mean, there is no greater lover of diverse animation on the planet than John Lasseter. How much do I love Disney 2D Animation? Well, I recently bought an original pencil of Ariel from THE LITTLE MERMAID for my sweetheart for Valentine's Day. I know, I'm ruining the surprise, well... she had a really bad day a couple of days ago and I showed her a tiny image of it. It is at the frame shop right now being matted and framed gloriously for her. It's from the "KISS THE GIRL" sequence and is just... it's just perfect. The lines and the elegance... you can just see the hopeful emotion in her face... lips parted so slightly... those big wonderful eyes... and you can hear the Caribbean beat and Sebastian's singing, "There you see herrrr..." It's awesome. Ariel is her favorite character in the history of Disney animation - and the look on her face when she saw what I got her was everything that I had hoped for.

Animation is a transcendent blissful medium of such beauty and emotional resonance when driven by artists and story-tellers. When hijacked by executives and similar mooks, it loses all heart, soul and resonance. Shockingly - when this began to happen at Disney... they managed to destroy the name of DISNEY animation and all of us that love that "seal of quality" looked to PIXAR, the only place on Earth that was giving us THAT feeling. Then there was THE IRON GIANT, a 2D miracle... and LILO & STITCH - which just turned up to be a fantastic aberration in the House of Mouse... one the execs never fully understood. It's success was marginalized and made to seem small in comparison to the awesome might of PIXAR. Obviously it was the medium, not the stories. It was a trend, not the veracity of the animation to tell honest and real fantastic tales.

I had heard a rumor a while back that Brad Bird was talking to Lasseter about Pixar producing a classic 2D animated film that he directed. God willing this is going to happen. I have to say, I imagine we will only see in theaters the results of Iger's genius in letting Pixar essentially take over Disney Animation and it's Imagineering in 2-5 years. But I'm betting that the work that is in the pipeline right now is going to end up with a polish and post-production fine tune unlike anything we've seen from the "Mouse House" in a very long time.

There's a part of me that wants John Lasseter to personally oversee the a new MICKEY MOUSE club... where he became the FACE of Walt Disney Studios... where he taught kids about animation, the magic of the park, the magic and the dream of Disney. Where he opened up the animation schools and instilled in future artists the dream of 2D animation! Plus, they're bringing OSWALD THE LUCKY RABBIT back to Disney!!! WOO HOO!!!

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Feb. 13, 2006, 12:47 a.m. CST

    good for them

    by Froggerrr

    End of Disney 2d?? was scared there

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 12:49 a.m. CST


    by Nachokoolaid

    I liked 2D.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 12:53 a.m. CST


    by Doc_Strange

    Other than that, good news for Disney, though I still say Pixar has run out of good ideas, hence their sudden willingness to sell out to Disney. We'll see..........

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 1:03 a.m. CST

    Maybe an IRON GIANT prequel?

    by Todd

    This comes as good news to me. Brad Bird heading up another animated feature

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 1:15 a.m. CST

    ya big palooka!

    by Spacesheik

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 1:21 a.m. CST

    Lost 7 inches? What, you can't find your dick?

    by 3 Bag Enema

    Ha! I kill me.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 1:28 a.m. CST

    Toy Story 3 back on?!

    by jwalling101 said that the Pixar guys are actually taking over the production of Toy Story 3 after canning the original production from the "cheapquil" geniuses at Disney. Also, I'm getting pissed at all these people bashing Pixar for "selling out"-- by becoming an integral part of the Mouse House they can re-invigorate everything that made the animation studio so great. As for 2d animation: when does cpr become necrophelia?

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 1:34 a.m. CST

    I doubt there will be an Iron Giant prequel

    by Undead Neverhood

    Iron Giant was a good movie but it really didn't do all that well at the box office unfortunately. And given that I doubt a prequel or sequel to Iron Giant will be green lit or even considered.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 1:36 a.m. CST

    I always wanted to be an animator.

    by Det. John Kimble

    That was my dream as a kid - to do Bugs Bunny shorts, but then short animation died. With this news, I may do something totally unmerited and drive over to PIXAR tomorrow and beg for a job sweeping up in the cafeteria if any of this is true.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 1:36 a.m. CST

    An Iron Giant prequel?

    by kintar0

    Wouldn't that just be the Iron Giant destroying shit on other planets, maybe with other, equally evil Iron Giants?

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 1:42 a.m. CST

    Pixar's idea pipeline.

    by one9deuce

    I do worry about their future film ideas, because they have already used all the big genre ideas of things that kids love: Toys, Bugs, Monsters, Fish, Superheroes... Hopefully they have some great ideas, and more importantly, that they just hit a 2D animated film out of the park. Like Disney animation did from 1989 to 1994. That level of quality would be so great for the future of 2D feature length films.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 1:53 a.m. CST

    Harry is producing a movie with Disney called...

    by ManOfStool


  • Feb. 13, 2006, 1:54 a.m. CST

    Cars looks crap, &I didn't think that til the WonCom cl

    by iamnicksaicnsn

    ...ip. Goddamn FUCK THIS NEW SUBJECT LIMIT! What is it going to change??? HOW DOES IT HELP?!?!? ......... Anyway, Cars looks really really terrible. Every car is so stereotyped, it's sad. The NASCAR car Owen Wilson plays obviously only cares about going fast. Then there's the Italian cars that happen to have thick accents and sell shoes/tires. Then the Porche Boxter is the female PR-ish type. The VW bug is the hippie "pot"head. It doesn't stop!

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 1:55 a.m. CST

    But the other news sounds great.

    by iamnicksaicnsn

    I knew Pixar was going to take over Disney, and not the other way around.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 1:57 a.m. CST

    to Kintar0 from Todd re: THE IRON GIANT

    by Todd


  • Feb. 13, 2006, 2:13 a.m. CST

    This is most cool. But...

    by Jaka

    ...did anybody really think that Disney was NEVER going to do 2D again? I sure as hell didn't. Trends are called such for a reason. And if Disney didn't bring back the artform - one of the other major studios would have come along and slammed a couple out of the park, making it viable again. Or an indie would do it and build their studio around the success. I never for one second believed that Disney would NEVER EVER FOR ALL ETERNITY stop making traditional 2D films.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 2:14 a.m. CST

    to Todd

    by Bryan

    I think a prequel would take away the importance of what happens in the original. I think what happens to him is the result of two things: the bump on his head that makes him temporarily forget his mission, and his friendship with Hogarth that teaches him "you are who you choose to be." I think you actually have it backwards - it's not that he and only he is "unique and different" and that there's some story there from before he meets Hogarth. It's that any one of those "cookie cutter" iron giants has the potential to decide they are not a gun. Of course, I would love to see Brad Bird bring back the Iron Giant if he thought there was some reason to, but that might be kind of like bringing back E.T. (And by the way, it seems especially unlikely that Disney would do a sequel/prequel to a film by another studio.)

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 2:16 a.m. CST

    Harry comes out of the closet officially

    by wash the first two paragraphs.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 2:19 a.m. CST

    Regarding Iron Giant pre/sequels....

    by Jaka, it didn't do good box office. But it is widely considered a classic now. And it's definitely developed a pretty large audience over the last few years. Even better, it's a "kid in all of us" audience. Which will bring parents to the theater with their kids. So it could happen. I'd certainly rather see an Iron Giant sequel than another lame "superhero" or horror sequel (not that they are all lame - just the majority lately).

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 2:30 a.m. CST

    To Bryan from Todd re: THE IRON GIANT

    by Todd


  • Feb. 13, 2006, 2:44 a.m. CST

    All you Iron Giant mentioners...

    by gobofraggleuk

    ...have you read the children's book upon which it's based (loosely)? The Iron Man by the poet Ted Hughes. It was one of my favourite books as a kid and included things which weren't in the version of the story used for the movie... like a Space-Dragon! I'm serious.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 2:54 a.m. CST

    It Ain't The 2D/3D, It's The Storytelling

    by filker-tom

    Being a profit-driven corporate entity, that's the part that's eluded Disney for so long. But that's what brought them to the dance in the first place, time and again. For all the good stuff that they've done over the past twelve years or so, nothing was as completely successful as were the Ashman Three (The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin). The closest they came were with The Hunchback of Notre Dame (surprisingly good, adult, artistic, but they had to throw in the happy ending and the damned cutesy gargoyles) and The Emperor's New Groove (hilarious beyond belief, especially for modern Disney, but they had no idea how to market it). The writing got sloppier and sloppier, and the concepts more and more marketing-driven, to the point that when they had something that really wasn't marketable to the little kids' market (e.g., Atlantis, Treasure Planet), they didn't know what to do with 'em. And they spent more and more of their animations resources on the B Teams cranking out episodic TV or misbegotten sequels that uniformly stunk up the place (Cinderella 2, Pocahontas 2, Little Mermaid 2, Atlantis 2, Peter Pan 2, etc., etc., etc.) because -- guess what? The writing wasn't good anymore. Even the ones that didn't completely stink (e.g., The Tigger Movie) were lacking. Meanwhile, Pixar films kicked everything's ass at the box office, and the blinded corporate giant brilliantly deduced that the problem wasn't that their own movies stank, but that they weren't 3D enough. (They even proved this completely wrong with all the gorgeous watercolor work for Lilo & Stitch, and then apparently forgot it the following week or something.) Fortunately for all and sundry, Lasseter's got a brain and a vision, and I hope he gets the 2D division up to snuff again -- because, while 3D is amazing when done right, there are some things that only 2D can do properly. Like any other artistic tool, you just have to know how to use it, rather than abandon it for The Newest And Coolest Thing. And the first thing that Disney needs to do -- something I'm confident Lasseter will bring to the table -- is to regain the art of storytelling.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 2:59 a.m. CST


    by kintar0

    Where do I begin, Todd? JDanielP, is that you? Is this me? The Iron Giant wasn't God or Jesus, maybe metaphorically, so you don't capitalize the "his" and "he," etc. That's just creepy. You sound like you've put a lot of thought into your whole prequel idea, but what you've got is called "fan fiction." Which is cool, but there's a reason some ideas are "fan fiction" and others are "three picture deal at Warner Bros." You ask if "any cookie cutter Iron Giant COULD [my emphasis] have followed the same arc in the same situation?" And the answer is: yes, definitely. A better question would be: what if there was no dent in his head? Or: would he have smoked Hoggarth as soon as he saw him if no dent? The dent's the thing, in this case. It's what makes him special. No dent, no special. Pre-Dent: Killer Robot. Post-Dent: Compassionate Robot. "would Hogarth have been so eager to save a Giant that was raining destruction down on his home?" That's exactly what happened in the movie. The whole climax? I realize you've drank an entire bottle of wine or whatever, but c'mon. Why was he so far off course? Scouting party, dude. He was headed for Earth. Was there any indication in the film that he was off course? Bryan's right, too. The whole message of the film was that "any one of those... iron giants has the potential to decide they are not a gun." I thought it was pretty obvious, but what do I know?

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 3:31 a.m. CST

    2D Animation...dead?

    by LucienPierce

    I'm not sure that 2D animation will ever have a great comeback into the cinema. While I love it (both in films as well as games) You just don't get the image quality from 2D that you get from 3D (Unless it's horribly done ala Hoodwinked)...3D is smoother, and gives you much more flexibility in shot design etc. as well as the ability to instill an image with obscene amounts of detail. The only thing that 2D does better is perhaps character design...I think that people have now accepted 3D animation as the style for cinema/feature releases and 2D animation for Saturday morning cartoons.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 3:39 a.m. CST

    To Kintar0 from Todd re: THE IRON GIANT

    by Todd


  • Feb. 13, 2006, 4:43 a.m. CST

    Great News!

    by jimmy_009

    I knew this was going to turn Disney around.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 4:43 a.m. CST

    Wouldn't THE IRON GIANT sequel be THE IRON WOMAN?...

    by Negative Man

    Or 'GIANTESS' perhaps. Ted Hughes did write it as a sequel to THE IRON MAN in 1993. It was about an Iron Woman that emerged from a polluted swamp to destroy every pollution creating factory on the planet. She ends up meeting and befriending a little girl named Lucy whose father works in one of the factories the Iron Woman has targeted. The Iron Woman is also changing all men over the age of eighteen that she comes across into water creatures as well, if memory serves. So they have at least one more story they can do in THE IRON GIANT universe (he does pop up in the book as well) without creating a Hollywood-hackish sequel.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 5:09 a.m. CST

    2D is back? When did it leave?

    by BendersShinyAss

    So Disney is going to be bringing back 2d features. Lets be real here, the only time Disney stopped making 2d features was last year when they said "We're not making any more 2d features" And I do recall the talkback with a lot of subject titles reading exactly these words "Bullshit". Or maybe it was just me. But the point is, What the hell makes Disney so fucking good they can proclaim there is no animation unless it is released by or via them. Seriously. Lets get our heads together. Before the terrorists win. I just threw that last bit in for fun. Boy everyone got over Terrorsits real quick, hey.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 5:13 a.m. CST

    LucienPierce, maybe.

    by Jaka

    You make a good point. But really, I tend to be on the story matters side. I don't, personally, think that every stories lend themselves to the 3D world when talking about animation. Even if 2D fades to the point that of say, a 90/10 ratio, or 80/20, I think (I hope even) that there will continue to be traditionally animated films. It's an artform and it deserves to be preserved beyond the cheese of saturday morning cartoons. Because really, although it is technically cell animation - it's just not the same as MOST theatrical releases (frames per second and all that). Also, I've been saying for years that I think at some point there will be a kind of marraige between the two - 3D and 2D animation that is. 3D animation (i.e. - the technology and programming behind it)is still being perfected. When that happens somebodies lightbulb will go off and one of those holy shit moments will happen where we get a 3D/2D movie. Or a 2D/3D...whatever. I just CAN'T see 2D being completely replaced by a bunch of guys crunching numbers. That's part of the magic of 2D - it's what would be considered "art" in a more traditional sense. And when it's done correctly there is nothing that can touch it with a computer. Even though I agree with what you are saying about shot design and detail - still nothing like 2D when it hits you the right way.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 5:40 a.m. CST

    Jaka, story does count...

    by LucienPierce

    ...It's the most important part of any film. But it's not necessarily the selling point of any film. I loved Treasure Island...thought it was the best Disney film to come out in awhile...had it been 3D it probably would've been more financially lucrative...And you're right, there is a magic to 2D that you'll never get from comes from having the artist to draw/paint every frame...which is of course it's greatest weakness as well. I know it's not a film...but does anyone remember the great Lucasarts games Day of the Tentacle, Sam and Max and Full Throttle? For me that was the last time games have had a level of "character" that 3D games have failed to attain (Take a look at LSL7 to LSL8 for a perfect example)...unfortunately you rarely find quality non-3D games nowadays and I feel it's the same for animation. Though not all movies suit 3D, once again Hoodwinked is a perfect example...I haven't seen it but isn't Curious George a mix between 2D/3D?

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 5:42 a.m. CST

    Happy to see 2D coming back to Disney...

    by morGoth

    ...but not nearly as happy as I am to see the return of Todd! Heh, wondered if the mention of Him would bring you back. We've missed your IG musings. Pay no attention to these disbelievers...WWTIGD?

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 5:45 a.m. CST

    2D doesn't work in movies?

    by dr_buggerlugs

    So that means most of Disney's classic output never worked? The Lion King, Aladdin, Beauty & The Beast? The Little Mermaid? And that's before we get to older know, those tv quality films Snow White, Cinderella, Bambi, The Jungle Book...dude, it's not about the type of's the vision that goes into it, the determination to tell a story, the power of imagination that goes into it. That makes great cinema, not whether you use a pencil or a pixel...

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 5:50 a.m. CST


    by LucienPierce

    ...At least the Japanese have stuck with 2D...though God alone knows how they're able to create such perfectly animated films...I've been told that it's animated at 24fps as opposed to Disney films which are animated at 12fps, does anyone know if this is true? If it is man, that's a LOT of time spent drawing...I also doubt you could every stylize 3D in any manner to be as evisceral as SAMURAI JACK is, or to have the charm THE SIMPSONS have, but then again you could never do TOY STORY in 2D...If anything I think for 2D animation to make a huge comeback they need visual masters to create immensely stylish 2D stuff...Imagine an Aronofsky or Michael Bay (don't hate, you know he's visually amazing heh) animated film?

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 5:50 a.m. CST

    Harry, do you have a girlfriend!?!?!?!

    by Lord_Soth


  • Feb. 13, 2006, 6:27 a.m. CST

    Damnit Harry, bros before hos!

    by Horseflesh

    It's like a rule and shit.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 7:02 a.m. CST

    bring it back...

    by sounding

    they're warm and fuzzy.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 7:02 a.m. CST

    I love 2D, but "Lilo and Stitch" was horrendous

    by Pongo

    There was not one redeeming quality in that movie whatsoever. The girl was annoying and Stitch is one of the most unlikable characters in Disney history.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 8:06 a.m. CST

    Great News. I hope it happens!

    by TheButcher

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 8:19 a.m. CST

    Well, this is GREAT NEWS...

    by Billy_Batts

    But as an animator, I kind of have a problem with calling it 2D. How about hand drawn and CG? That feels better.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 8:30 a.m. CST

    how cool would it be to go back in time 3 years.....

    by jig98

    and see finding nemo flop and see home on the range make a shitload of money? it would change everything!! oh, and cavemen was the shit.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 8:56 a.m. CST

    2D does not equal = badness, jig98

    by AnimeJune

    As cosmically appropriate as it was to cast Rosanne Barr as a cow, "Home on the Range" sucked because it had a shitty story, was cliched, and had annoying voice actors, not because it was two-dimensionally animated. Animation, whether 2D or 3D, is an ART FORM. It's not like technology where one form becomes obsolete when another emerges. Take a look at Beauty and the Beast. Classic. Were ANY of Pixar's 3D movies nominated for Best Picture? Thought not. Pixar has made fabulous movies, and has an excellent writing team, but 2D has its place in contemporary culture, too.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 9:04 a.m. CST

    First pic of new Disney-shorts

    by L. Duderino Sorry, I couldn't help myself!

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 9:06 a.m. CST

    Say what you will, but Fantasia 2000 was art

    by Terry_1978

    That Pomp and Circumstance section featuring Donald was excellent drawn and directed, and I miss stuff like that. 2D was only declared dead when Disney made it so, and the rest of the studios promptly followed suit. That new Rapunzel they're doing, comedy or no, would be better suited for 2D, simply because its' the next "princess" movie in line for them.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 9:09 a.m. CST


    by blackwood

    The recent success of stop-motion animated films suggests that there is a (market) place for all kinds of animation, as long as it's artfully done. As with any medium, it depends on the story - what format best serves the story. Viva la difference.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 9:21 a.m. CST

    wait a second! didn't Harry..

    by white owl

    mention buying a picture of Ariel from LM last year for a mysterious 'girlfriend' he spoke of? Or is it my imagination? It just seemed very deja vu once I read that. I'll do some investigation.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 9:50 a.m. CST

    It's now easier to market 3D crapfests like Shark Tale

    by performingmonkey

    Seriously, I can't see Disney putting enough effort into another 2D animation for it to be great. Just look at The Lion King and the amount of work that was put into it, shit like that will never happen again because Disney has now entered the pop culture references, marketing over story, sequelitis etc. and it won't be able to go back from that. I want them to, but it won't happen.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 9:59 a.m. CST

    Lilo and Stitch horrendous?

    by bonkers

    wrong wrong wrong, the best thing Disney's done in years, i mean, it's got Elvis and a spaceship with a "La Cucaracha" novelty horn, i swear, you meatheads

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 10:01 a.m. CST

    Ariel is the best

    by Lain Of The Net

    Harry...I got to know how to treat a lady. I got chocolates....and I gotta tell ya they were beyond good. I think in general I don't appreciate Disney animation but I did like Cinderella a lot and my all time favorite had to be "The Little Mermaid". Ariel is just the sweetest of sweethearts. I love that movie to the point that it surpirses my friends who know my tastes. While I have enjoyed the Pixar stuff (esp. "Incredibles") I have always had a little part in the back of my mind that felt sad about Disney not doing anymore 2D work. It is a style that is becoming rarer here and in Japan but one that has a definite richness if done right. Hey....any chance you can post a shot of the the cell after you give it to her? Love to see it.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 10:05 a.m. CST

    "Lips parted so slightly...those big wonderful eyes..."

    by Osmosis Jones

    Mmmmmmm, Ariel...

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 10:08 a.m. CST

    Oh, okay. You're a crackpot...

    by kintar0

    you should have just said so in the first place, Todd.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 10:31 a.m. CST

    "framed gloriously" ??? a fucking pen??

    by Windowlicker74

    I already pity your 'sweetheart'.. why cant you keep your geek outbursts to yourself?? poor girl...

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 10:38 a.m. CST

    Cel vs. CG

    by isNegative

    I have to agree with previous comments about needing memorable storytelling accompanied by various visual media... I knew that the CG fad would die down a little once a few shoddy-written movies were done that no amount of individually rendered body hairs could make up for... Traditional cel animation is an art... Even the most shitty script still has to have 27-30 some odd indiviually hand-drawn frames per second! (multiply that by 90 min...)Now that's a labor of love! Sometimes the animators are all that is left to polish the turd-of-a-script to make it semi-appealing. As for the marriage of Cel and CG... Cel shaded image-maps have been used alot in the past on mostly landscapes and mechanical objects that get real tedious to draw... Futurama fans can see this alot and even the newer Japanese works are even doing it(Steamboy, and I believe Howl's Moving Castle) though they used to do it magnificently all by hand... I can still appreciate both cel AND computer animation just as I can look at both a van Gogh painting and a Raphael sculpture and see their individual, inherent beauty.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 10:50 a.m. CST

    This can only be good news....

    by Seph_J

    ... wouldn't it be nice if 2D films from Disney/Pixar became a big thing again. Like it used to be with The Lion King, and Aladdin, and The Little Mermaid. We can all relive our childhoods everytime a disney film is released! Now we just need some Alan Menken music and all will be right with the world.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 10:52 a.m. CST

    Dont think Harry actually meant a 'pen'...

    by Seph_J

    ... more likely a drawing, or piece of artwork. I was confused the first time I read it too though.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 10:55 a.m. CST

    mmmm, Pocahontas and Belle

    by Seph_J

    Ariel was good and all that, but if I was Penny Crayon and could make any drawing come to life, it would be a toss up over Pocahontas, and Belle. Literally. Then I'd finally find out what was up Pocahontas's river bend. mmm.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 11:21 a.m. CST

    I wish they'd do musicals again...

    by AnimeJune

    The Disney musicals were the best hand-drawn movies. Things just weren't the same since they dumped Tim Rice and Alan Menkin for *gag* Phil Collins and the Goo Goo Dolls. I saw "The Little Mermaid" when I was four, and I had the words to those songs memorized ever since then. Bring back the musicals! If you MUST be contemporary, Disney, get Billy Joel to do it. C'mon everybody: "Look at this stuff, isn't it neat, wouldn't you think my collection's complete? Wouldn't you think I'm a girl, a girl who has....everything!"

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 11:40 a.m. CST

    The little mermaid was a Michael Eisner abomination

    by loodabagel

    It wasn't 3D that killed Disney, it was him. Mike Eisner turned the studio into a mockery of it's former self. So many of the movies that came after the Little Marmaid were utter crap. Pixar was making most of the good movies, except A Bugs Life. Mike Eisner just ran traditional animation into the ground. Now that he's gone, we might get to see some real cartoons again. Even though movies The Lion King and The Nightmare Before Christmas were made in his reign, I feel the decline of the Disney Channel and crap movies like Pocahontas and Treasure Planet were more heavily influenced by him. Ugh, Now I'm just rambling again. Sorry, I'm out of here.

  • It's the content of a film that makes it good, not how its animated. The last three or four 2D Disney films were shit. So they stopped making them. The last few 3D Disney films have been average/good. They made the move for a reason...

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 11:55 a.m. CST

    Why didn't anyone tell Harry...

    by gobofraggleuk

    ...that dressing "in bright colours" (colors) is not the way to woo a woman?

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 11:56 a.m. CST

    I'm sure someone mentioned it

    by myspoonistoobig

    But I don't care to read the talkback. Iron Giant is Warner Brothers, not Disney.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 11:57 a.m. CST

    Yeah, but CGI can be just as romantic

    by mraig

    There might be no 'cels', but I got my girlfriend a floppy disk containing the data for that bug that Julia Louis Dreyfus played in "a Bug's Life". It's the original floppy disk too, not a reprint. I'm having it framed right now, but I let her put it in her Mac Plus and look at it, and she was really excited. She was like, "Wow, how many polygons are in that," and I was like, "Shhhh.... don't talk..."

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 11:58 a.m. CST

    I'm imagining neon...

    by gobofraggleuk shirt with highlighter-pen yellow pantaloons over a nice pair of azure blue suede shoes. With a jaunty eye-poke orange top hat.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 11:59 a.m. CST


    by gobofraggleuk

    The Iron Giant is Brad Bird... who works for Pixar... which is part of Disney...

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 12:01 p.m. CST


    by gobofraggleuk

    "as an animator, I kind of have a problem with calling it 2D. How about hand drawn and CG? That feels better" That's true. Good point. Pixar's films are all 2D, after all.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 12:05 p.m. CST

    and so it begins

    by quadrupletree

    The return to greatness I mean. Or shuld I say insanely great-ness??

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 12:21 p.m. CST

    harry kissing and cuddling?

    by TheBaxter

    come on, man! i'm trying to eat breakfast here!

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 12:22 p.m. CST

    Interesting discrepancy, Harry.


    "Then, you get up, take that morning shower and the water feels so good, you begin singing goofy songs in the shower and you're just happy as could be. Ya dress in bright colors because you just feel that good. You grab your favorite Yoplait Yogurt out of the fridge (cherry) because you feel so good about losing about 7 inches and it just feels like the most perfect way to start the day." That's just Harry being a regular guy, I guess. But stills from X3? GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY! Hypocritesezwhat?

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 12:30 p.m. CST

    There's a difference

    by blackwood

    between homophobic assumptions and sophmoric humour playing off homophobic assumptions. You've just illustrated the former, LIGHTST0RMER. You're an education.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 1:01 p.m. CST

    Disney and 2D

    by emeraldboy

    The opening of Lion King is Stunning. the sun rising is the back ground and Lebo M soaring voice. The problem is that Disney has not made an event since the lion king. Their trailers used say as much. Coming this spring is disney's 35th animated movie. The lion king was the peak of thier powers. It was all down hll from thier regarding 2D animation. If they are going to do 2D then they will have to re-open the florida studio and go back to having one out in the summer and one out in winter.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 1:01 p.m. CST

    Huzzah for Disney FA and Cel Animation

    by PaladinMRB

    What wonderful news. The prospect of Disney FA doing quality cel animation again is awesome. Just look at the old Disney movies prior to Eisner (what a tool) and look at other animation...especially Japanese animation by Hayao Miyazaki / Studio Ghibli. Most of their stuff is cel flavored by CGI. The idea of seeing some epic stories and animation like that coming out Disney would be cool. Let's hope it's true!

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 1:10 p.m. CST

    Billy_Batts, not sure about the terminology myself

    by filker-tom

    There is a LOT of CG in "traditional" animation these days. Maybe "painted" versus "rendered"...? That would include in the 2D/"painted" division all the CG stuff that Disney integrated into more traditionally hand-drawn films, such as the ship in The Little Mermaid, the ballroom in Beauty and the Beast, and the Deep Canvas in Tarzan, and separate it from the fully-rendered models in the Pixar films, Dinosaur, and Chicken Little. "Rendered" would also work to describe what they seem to be doing with Flushed Away. And, films like Sinbad, which use both blatantly together, could be described as "part painted, part rendered" or something like that. Gaaaah. This is gonna be a problem. And, unlike a couple of posters above (who I do not disagee with at all, I must say), I find myself shying away from "cel" animation because I think we're gonna end up seeing more stuff "drawn" digitally.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 1:18 p.m. CST

    This talkback is interesting

    by Bryan

    because I've finally heard from two or three of those people who are allegedly out there who think drawings are obsolete now that computers can create images. Isn't it a little too early to be giving up the ship when only one company has made great computer animated features? Anyway, I think most people can still appreciate hand drawn animation even after watching Toy Story several times, and I'm not just talking about the old Disney classics. It's hard to imagine a computer animated equivalent to The Triplettes of Belleville or Spirited Away. Same goes for stop motion. There is something about the texture and weight of the puppets in Nightmare Before Christmas and The Corpse Bride that no one has been able to recreate on a computer. And maybe it will look better when it's finished, but so far that Flushed Away movie doesn't appear to have any of the charm of the hand-crafted Aardman films. I don't think any of these mediums will die. They may have periods of hibernation, but people will always be happy to see them come back if they are done right.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 1:26 p.m. CST

    Semantics, Blackwood.


    Not to say that I disagree with you, though. But why do you say Harry lambasting a movie he hasn't seen and tar-and-feathering it with a homo connotation is just him having a lark, and I'm the one casting aspersions? I don't think that's a fair call. PS: I have much respect for someone I can argue with on AICN who keeps his retorts intelligent. You're one of the few talkbackers for whom I'd check my spelling.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 1:32 p.m. CST

    cels/the Lion King

    by Bryan

    That's true, the term cel animation is no longer accurate, because cels aren't used anymore. If they are not directly drawn onto a computer tablet they are drawn on paper, scanned into a computer and colored digitally. So there is no longer such a thing as an ink and paint department at any of the studios. It's not a new phenomenon - Disney has been coloring digitally since The Rescuers Down Under. As for the comments about The Lion King being the peak of Disney animation: can someone please explain that movie's enduring success to me? I agree that it has some great scenes but overall it really bugs me. They have this great dramatic story going and then have to cut away to these ridiculous songs that completely kill the momentum of the story, especially "Hakuna Matata," half of which is about farting. And I hate the way Timon and Pumba are crammed into the story. It's like forcing an unfunny Billy Crystal smartass character into Bambi. I don't know, maybe if I watch it a third time I will finally understand the appeal. Personally I much prefer the much less popular Tarzan. There are horrible Phil Collins songs, but at least no one's singing them so they don't stop the story. You have some comic relief that shouldn't be there, but there's much less emphasis on it. And between the jawdropping animation of Tarzan, the funny performance of Minnie Driver as Jane, the stunning three-dimensional jungle backgrounds and the father-son drama between Tarzan and Kerchak, I think it has way more to offer. (Of course, I understand that almost no one in the world agrees with me on this.)

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 1:40 p.m. CST

    2D's return to WDFA is still just a rumor ...

    by 7-zark-7

    ... a rumor which I HOPE is true, but a rumor nonetheless. From the blog: "And then I get a call tonight from a friend who has a friend who heard from a friend that at a meeting tonight with Lasseter that he was talking all about bringing back the glory of Disney traditional 2D animation" Cool? Yes! News? umm, not quite. <_< Pardon me; but I will wait for an "official" announcement before celebrating. ******************* Oh, and gobofraggleuk, THE IRON GIANT is -indeed- a Warner Bros. property; Brad Bird directed the film, but WB owns it, period. If Bird wanted to make a sequel (which is doubtful), he would have to leave Disney/Pixar and make the film at Warner Bros. OTOH, Warner Bros. could decide at ANY time to make an IRON GIANT sequel on their own, with or without Brad Bird. Scary? Yes! But thankfully, unlikely ... despite almost universal acclaim from critics and audiences, WB still has little respect for the movie.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 1:42 p.m. CST

    CGI movies about animals

    by Bryan

    I am happy that the current trend of CGI animal comedies is going to devour itself this year. There are at least eight CGI animal movies coming out in 2006: Doogal, Ice Age 2, The Wild, Over the Hedge, Open Season, Barnyard, Flushed Away, Happy Feet. Some I&#39;m sure will be better than others and not all will fit that Madagascar mold, but with that many coming out that close together a lot of them will have to fail and I believe the studios will be forced to try to think of a new idea next time.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 1:49 p.m. CST


    by Billy_Batts

    I guess I don&#39;t really care what else they call it, and you&#39;re right- the compositing of all different techiques makes it really difficult to nail it down...I was just pointing out that there is just as much 3d space on a peice of paper as there is on a computer monitor. The thought process is the same.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 1:58 p.m. CST

    2D still works

    by Doc_Strange

    I was just watching a Ralph Bakshi movie the other day called Fire & Ice. It was apparently made way back in 1983. The story was so-so and kind of boring but the animation was beautiful, much better than a lot of stuff done today, plus it was in the style of Frank Frazetta who I believe helped produce the film. I would like to see a studio have the balls to make a movie like this - maybe somewhat more adult oriented, though they couldn&#39;t market it to kids which would affect the BO. But the fact that the animation style worked is a testament to the fact that CG is just a tool.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 2:28 p.m. CST


    by gobofraggleuk

    "THE IRON GIANT is -indeed- a Warner Bros. property; Brad Bird directed the film, but WB owns it, period. If Bird wanted to make a sequel (which is doubtful), he would have to leave Disney/Pixar and make the film at Warner Bros." ......Good point. But, given how little respect WB have for it, I&#39;m sure they could be persuaded to sell the rights to the book, if they still have any exclusivity over those rights... after all, it is based (loosely) on a book - the Iron Giant is not a character which WB (or any WB-employee) originated... Hogarth is not in the book, but then a sequel would need the giant more than it needs hogarth... Like the difference between the Toy Story characters, which Pixar originated, and Snow White - which is based on a book and which there have been lots of versions of...

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 3:07 p.m. CST

    re: Brad Bird&#39;s 2D project

    by Ribbons

    It&#39;s not an "Iron Giant" prequel, it&#39;s "Ray Gunn," or something like that. He even spoke about it on an interview on this site a while back. My apologies to anyone who may have already pointed this out.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 3:36 p.m. CST

    Disney dropped the musicals because

    by Novaman5000

    For some reason, they got the idea that kids didn&#39;t like musicals anymore... That they were too "modern" for that. What assinine reasoning. Kids will always like musicals, and part of what made Disney such a hit were the songs. When they lost those, they began to go downhill. And I have to say, Atlantis and Treasure Planet weren&#39;t perfect, but that had a couple of good points, especially James Newton Howards pretty fantastic scores for both of those movies. It upped the quality of both by a couple notches in my opinion. I liked Tarzan alot, too, in spite of phil collins, but I think that I&#39;ll always have a soft spot for &#39;Hunchback&#39;. Despite being Disney-fied, it still had a great style and a really strong score.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 3:44 p.m. CST

    And I don&#39;t buy for a second the school of thought ....

    by Novaman5000

    That says that CG is soul-less, or in any way inferior to hand drawn animation. It&#39;s all in the story.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 3:44 p.m. CST

    animejune, thank you for making that so specific...

    by jig98

    but, the fact remains if finding nemo for some strange reason didn&#39;t surpass lion king, disney would&#39;ve never had to stop 2-d animation...and do chicken little...because everything that was released after finding nemo paled in comparison. but still think about going back 3 years to the summer of 03&#39; and watching finding nemo..flop like a fish..{no pun intended} the box office and see home on the range or some other good disney animated movie do a shitload of good business. oh, and cars is looking better by the MINUTE.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 4:20 p.m. CST


    by gobofraggleuk

    Hunchback of Notre Dame&#39;s been one of my favourites too... I think it&#39;s a very affecting film with great music and a well-realised world. I almost cried at the end of it, and that takes some doing.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 4:27 p.m. CST

    2D Hand Drawn ?

    by RobinP

    Best news I&#39;ve heard this year !!!

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 4:48 p.m. CST

    I agree -- this is an excellent talkback! And...

    by filker-tom

    Billy_Batts -- ah-yup, absolutely true. It really is a look-and-feel thing for me -- for instance, I loved the modelling on Treasure Planet, but the linework and colors made it look more... I dunno, weathered? It somehow looked more real than it would have if everything had been clean, gleaming, and anti-aliased. Same principle as the dirt-caked hardware in the original Star Wars film; made the place look lived-in. Bryan -- I think The Lion King&#39;s success is mostly marketing-based ; they drove that one directly at the three-to-eight-year-olds, who got their parents to buy ever-damn-thing associated with it. That said, there is a lot of goodness in the film, but not as much as the three before it (or, to my mind, Hunchback, Hercules, and Tarzan). Now, the Broadway show -- that&#39;s actually REALLY COOL. Completely different take on precisely the same story, and a lot more music. If you haven&#39;t seen it, I highly recommend it. Novaman5000 -- as you say, all in the story. I think the problem is that the last several movies, even with songs written by Broadway composers, even those who have worked for Disney... well, they really haven&#39;t been allowed to do what they do best: write musicals. The structure of The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Hunchback, and to a lesser extent Pocahontas are all very much show-based. The Lion King, Mulan, and Tarzan are much less so. Except for Home On The Range, they&#39;ve pretty much given that up. Again, the loss of storytelling shows up everywhere. That&#39;s why I&#39;m really hoping Lasseter fixes things up. Hand-drawn, CG, claymation, moving around Barbies and Kens, I don&#39;t care as long as it tells the story effectively.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 5:31 p.m. CST

    yeah seph, you could be right..

    by Windowlicker74

    maybe I overreacted a little

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 6:44 p.m. CST

    This Awesome

    by Gungan Slayer

    Damn, this is one of the best film news/rumors I&#39;ve heard these past few days. I really hope it pans out, although I think it will. I was one of the ones that was really against the Pixar deal, but now I see it in a different light. As far as I am concerned, Pixar bought Disney. Also, Harry (or anyone for that matter) what&#39;s the status with Roy Disney and Co? Surely they will come back after all the recent develepments right? Please answer Harry, cause I really want to know what Roy is up to. and I concur, this is one of the best damn talkbacks I&#39;ve seen on aicn in a long time.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 8:58 p.m. CST

    Wow...another good talkback....

    by Jaka

    ...that&#39;s been happening a lot lately. lol. I must say, I was intrigued by the mention of doing the CLASSIC Disney characters again as traditional cell animation. I&#39;d especially like to see more theatrical shorts as I&#39;ve been collecting all the dvd releases and there is some of the best animation ever in those collections (along with the WB/LT etc.). However, wasn&#39;t the switch to all CGI at Disney made, for the most part, so they could digitize all the classic characters? I suppose it doesn&#39;t matter now that they are switching over and getting some new blood in there - anything could happen. But for some reason I don&#39;t think we&#39;ll see the "classic" characters done traditionally for a minute. Mostly because I bet the Pixar guys would love to play around with those characters. - On an altogether different topic; is it just me, or do all the studios OTHER than Pixar make their CGI animation too dark? Like they are trying to hide the flaws. That&#39;s what I love about Pixar anyway.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 9:33 p.m. CST

    Congrats to Harry

    by Buddapest

    Losing 7 inches is significant, and I know how difficult it can be. You mentioned quite some time back that you were considering getting gastric bypass; did you do that? Just curious, and wishing you the best...keep up the good work.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 10:52 p.m. CST

    its very interesting....

    by dOk

    its very interesting seeing John Lasster in command at Disney since they fired both him and Tim Burton back in 79 I think it was... and yea they both were fired for being too creative.... lol It

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 12:56 a.m. CST

    I call BULLSHIT.. Harry does NOT eat yogurt.

    by Hideo Kojima

    Yogurt? pshaw!

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 2:51 a.m. CST


    by myspoonistoobig

    Yeah, well, I was just saying. It&#39;s lumped in with all these Disney movies and credit should go where credit is due. It&#39;s a WB film, which also happens to have an animation department, which also seems quiet of late. Bugs Bunny should be at least half as important as Mickey Mouse.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 4:02 a.m. CST

    Was about to go into a rant!

    by L. Duderino

    When a couple of talkbackers were talking about "Flushed Away" I thought they were reffering to Sprited Away, hahaha! Disrespectful bastards!

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 4:08 a.m. CST


    by L. Duderino

    Cool, someone actually being respectful to Harry! I salute you sir. And I salute Harry and his site - others (like Dark Horizons for example) just give you facts, but show no heart or any emotions.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 6:46 a.m. CST

    The biggest question, though...

    by DocPazuzu what does spidermanfreak20 think about it?

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 7:48 a.m. CST

    What I am hoping Lasseter will achieve with Disney 2D.

    by Wild At Heart

    I hope that he will contribute to completely redefining, in the paying cinema-going public&#39;s understanding (!), what 2D animation has the potential to be. ... as in I hope he helps to completely kick the utterly stale, hackneyed Disney &#39;aesthetic&#39; to the curb and show much balls, in terms of the look and production design of 2D films to come. 2D as a medium was never stale. The Disney cookie-cutter, assembly-line &#39;style&#39; was stale - hackneyed, boring, vapid, irrelevant... whatever you want to call it. 2D is only limited by the craft and talent of the individuals with the pencils and the imaginations that drive them. In short it simply isn&#39;t that limited at all... or, more specifically, it doesn&#39;t NEED to be. All 2D needs is somebody who will help it throw off its chains. Lasseter is probably the best man to achieve this. All in all, this is very good news indeed...

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 10:34 a.m. CST

    Disney&#39;s Resurrected!

    by R.C. the "Wise"

    They&#39;re getting back to basics; you know...the things that made them Disney. It&#39;s about time.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 2:09 p.m. CST

    L. Duderino

    by Buddapest

    I return the salute, and thank you. If it weren&#39;t for Harry, we wouldn&#39;t be here. Thanks, Harry.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 3:17 p.m. CST

    Eh, the only reason to "abandon" the 2d stuff

    by scrumdiddly

    the only difference, is that they won&#39;t have to work with the little people. It&#39;s easier and cheaper. There&#39;s no real technical difference - it just looks different. CG animation is not "3d", it just doesn&#39;t use outlines.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 4:39 p.m. CST

    I just read this

    by emeraldboy

    Eisner tried to lobby against the Disney/pixar deal saying that it was too expensive. Eisner rang several members of the disney board and asked them not to support the deal. It does seem that he did try to undermine iger, which is bizaare because Iger is Eisner handpicked successor. Weird.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 7:37 p.m. CST

    can&#39;t we all just get along? The best animation ...

    by Johnno

    is when they smoothly combine 2D and 3D elements!!! And I&#39;m not talking Treasure Planet... I&#39;m talking about how the Japanese do it! Watch Metropolis! Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence! Steamboy! Last Exile! That&#39;s the shit right there!!!!

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 12:37 a.m. CST

    To LucienPeirce

    by Verbal Kombat

    Film ("film" is not digital, film is actual celluloid) is shot 24 frames per second. In some animation studios they do what&#39;s called "shooting on two&#39;s" which means every drawing is shot twice. So although it is 24 fps only twelve actual drawings are drawn.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 4:01 p.m. CST

    Eisner and Katzenberg had no business running Disney

    by beamish13

    Because they have no comprehension of the animation process whatsoever. Before them, Disney films never had outtakes/deleted scenes and animators had the freedom to change scenes as they saw fit. This is the best thing to ever happen to the studio.