Mathew Patterson 20 Sep 05

Would you hire an artist who insisted on using computer animation? :)

Mark 20 Sep 05

Pixar makes great movies, yes. What they really excel at, however, is creating outstandingstories to wrap around that animation.

Content is King. Pixar proves that with every release they put out there.

Rabbit 20 Sep 05

@Mark:

“Content is King.” Tsk, tsk.

That’s like saying, “product is king.”

I believe a more accurate statement is, “Audience is king.”

I’d wager that anything you make will be enjoyed by some. Some people like good stories, some people like mindless blood and action. My roommate considers a movie “good” if it “entertained him for its duration.”

However, what entertains him one day may not entertain him another day. Thus, the truly tried and tested, “It depends.” =D

David Holtz 20 Sep 05

Hasn’t someone already come along and made an amazing drawn-animation feature… What about Hayao Miyazaki?

I don’t know. Pixar is total fluff- family pictures. I understand that nobody is going to spend millions to make a computer animated porno that looks as good as Pixar movies, but these are always safe pictures and that’s a bummer.

Darrel 20 Sep 05

Pixar is total fluff- family pictures. I understand that nobody is going to spend millions to make a computer animated porno

Huh? Porn isn’t ‘fluff’ but Pixar is?

Not Bob 20 Sep 05

@ David Holtz

Whoa. Did you just make a plea for porno on someone else’s blog?

Dr_God 20 Sep 05

I think with animation it comes down to imagination. You aren’t tied down to the physical world or reality, so the creator’s imagination is what controls the quality of the movie. The technology only exists to transform those ideas onto the screen. Those who have shown that they have superior imaginations make the best movies. Miyazaki is the best example of this. His movies could be done in claymation for all I care, just as long as he’s allowed to tell his story the way he sees it.

Thomas Baekdal 20 Sep 05

Well, Final Fantasy is a perfect example of technology first. They ended ended up loosing 130 million and closed the company.

Nice animations though.

Thomas 20 Sep 05

replace(“pixar”,”RubyOnRails”)

Christopher Fahey 20 Sep 05

Someday soon, somebody will come along and do a drawn-animated film

Oh boy, I can’t wait to see what a drawn-animated film might look like! The mind boggles!

Seriously, Burton is sadly just proving himself wrong - even he seems to be forgetting that “drawn-animated” films are still being made excellently. The Triplets of Bellevillle?

Miyazaki?

bikas 20 Sep 05

Burton is one to talk really… though his style is unique, he had a string of bad films… that relied heavily on his vision, but lacked in story. Charlie and the Choc Factory seems to have put him back on track. I have visited the Pixar campus several times. Aside from being an adult playground complete with company sponsored car shows, movie nights and fencing lessons, anyone who works at the company can continue (or start) their education on the premises.

They look inside before hiring and regardless of pedigree or lack thereof, a person who works hard to be, say an animator, has a chance. It’s a wonderful company. I envy the people who work there.

Ed 20 Sep 05

“Burton is one to talk really� though his style is unique, he had a string of bad films� “

Oh yeah, all of those failures like recent Big Fish, Sleepy Hollow, Mars Attacks!, Ed Wood, Batman Returns, Edward Scissorhands, Batman and Beetle Juice.

Bikas 21 Sep 05

I am not saying they were failures at the box office, but Sleepy Hollow, Batman Returns, Planet of the Apes and Big Fish are more style than substance. That’s my opinion - which, I guess doesn’t really matter. Watch Batman Returns over the weekend… it sucks! Penguins with rockets on their back… come on dude.

Anonymous Coward 21 Sep 05

Like Studio Ghibli… Masterfull hand drawn movies.

MrBlank 21 Sep 05

“Penguins with rockets on their back� come on dude.”

Yeah! And what’s up with that guy in a bat costume and cape driving around in a rocket-powered car fighting crime? Come on dude.

EB* 21 Sep 05

Anyone remember that cartoon that won at Cannes? Les Triplettes de Belleville, although the name was changeed for the US market.

All hand drawn - obv Tim did not see it. Probably thought - poncy euro film - not my cup of tea….LOL

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286244/combined

Dan Boland 21 Sep 05

Burton’s first two words are in Hollywood. Makes a lot more sense now, huh?

bikas 21 Sep 05

“Yeah! And what�s up with that guy in a bat costume and cape driving around in a rocket-powered car fighting crime? Come on dude.”

Damn it. You got me.

Felix 21 Sep 05

“They�re relying too much on the technology and not enough on the artists.”

I’m not a computer animator but is there not any “artistic” effort or skill required for that type of job? Personally as a programmer I like to consider writing good solid code as an art form =)

Anonymous Coward 21 Sep 05

Total aside, but “Big Fish” was a beautiful movie with an original and interesting storyline.

EB* 21 Sep 05

DAN - “In Hollywood, they think drawn animation doesn�t work anymore, computers are the way”

Yeah ur right - people in Hollywood are unaware of anything outside of Hollywood. Manga anyone?

The point I was making related to this “Someday soon, somebody will come along and do a drawn-animated film, and it�ll be beautiful and connect with people, and they�ll all go, �Oh, we�ve got to do that!� It�s ridiculous.”

It has happened already and no, in Hollywood they didn’t suddenly think lets do it by hand; that would take a story, time and artistry not availible in Korea - and by the time you release you’ve missed your market oportunity to sell your plastic crappola.

Animated films require a story - just like any Film - except pron. That is the issue - computer animated or not Hollywood dosen’t generally bother with stories - with obvious exceptions. Bring back Mighty Mouse.

AC 21 Sep 05

“In Hollywood, they think drawn animation doesn�t work anymore, computers are the way.”

And Hollywood’s right. Don’t forget that Hollywood’s notion of “works” is “makes lots of money”, not “has a great story / art direction”.

Mark Sigal 21 Sep 05

I am not sure why hand drawing versus computer animation is such a meaningful distinction. A crappy, un-imaginative hand drawing artist with no story to tell isn’t magically more of a great artist because he is drawing.

These are tools. What you do with them is where the real artistry lies.

Burton’s rant is as much a function of his frustration with the herd-like mentality in Hollywood as it is a specific commentary on drawing versus computer animation.

Arcanum-XIII 21 Sep 05

Felix : in the 3D field, most animator are technician more than artist sadly… good animators are exceptions more than the rules.

ek 21 Sep 05

“I am not sure why hand drawing versus computer animation is such a meaningful distinction. A crappy, un-imaginative hand drawing artist with no story to tell isn�t magically more of a great artist because he is drawing.”

Hear, hear — I could not agree more Mark!

And to Christopher Fahey and EB*, The Triplets of Belleville made use of both hand-drawn and computer-generated imagery, which is part of what made it so visually compelling. CG technology enabled the director, Sylvain Chomet, to realize camera moves that would have been impossibly complex to render by hand (the Tour de France sequence being an example) and create landscapes with a level of dynamism not achievable with hand-drawn work (the sequence where Madame Souza and Bruno cross the Atlantic being an example — the water was entirely CG).

So Triplets is a beautiful example of Mark’s point that it’s not about the tools, but what an artist does with them.

Ben 21 Sep 05

A good article on Pixar (in agreement with the original post and with Mark’s comment up near the top) is the Dreamworks article in June’s Wired: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/dreamworks.html

Katzenberg (Dreamworks) knows that he can’t match Pixar for creative quality, he knows he doesn’t have a Brad Bird (Incredibles) working for him and he doesn’t give his directors the kind of freedom that Pixar does. Pixar is a fairly unique studio in that regard I think. It’s not just that they are producing “family” “fluff” films, they are producing GOOD “family” “fluff” films. A place like Dreamworks is more concerned with producing LOTS of “family” “fluff” films. Every single Pixar release has done well in the box office and in long term sales… not many (any?) other studios can claim that. Dreamworks’ whole mission is to crank out many many films using this newfangled computer animation thingamajig and hope some of them catch. It’s not about art for them, it’s purely a money thing. (Granted I’m sure there are many smart creative people working at Dreamworks doing great Art, but that’s not what Katzenberg is interested in, and it shows.) As the article states, Pixar versus Dreamworks == Quality versus Quantity.

Samuel 22 Sep 05

Very rightly written article, it arrests the attention of the reader. The subject is outlined with clear understanding and focus.

Web Design Ireland 23 Sep 05

It really does not matter how the movie is animated, its the plot and characters. Its just like a flash website. If theres no useful content in it, even if it looks nice, its useless.

Tim Almond 23 Sep 05

Ben,

The use of voice talent is symbolic of the difference between Pixar and Dreamworks to me.

For The Incredibles, there were 2 big stars - Samuel L Jackson and Holly Hunter. And almost nowhere in trailers was this mentioned. For Madagascar and Shark Tale, a big deal was made about the people doing the voices.

It’s a shame about what Dreamworks are doing. After Shrek, I thought they would make some great movies. Katzenberg’s time at Disney was one of their most fruitful for a long time, producing movies like Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast, but even Shrek 2 is collecting dust for me.

trojanman 17 Dec 05

Does anyone know about a fully animated porn?