Audience preferences & Tintin
These two blog posts discuss why they think 3D is becoming the more prominent animation medium in theaters, from the point of view of the audience, comparing the current 2D/3D animation situation to that of silent black & white films and color sound films. With that said, this debate should be taken with a grain of salt. It’s definitely an interesting read for animation enthusiasts.
The problem I have with these articles are the blatant over sight of what’s actually in theaters right now and what production houses are releasing in quality and quantity. Everything as of late has been 3D or mo-capped because the industry is riding off this trend all the way to the beach, and audiences are really getting sick of it. The recent outrage over the change of Disney’s Snow Queen project from 2D to 3D should have some clout.
The successes of traditionally animated TV shows such as Avatar:The Last Airbender (The fans are nearly rioting for it’s sequel Avatar: Legend of Korra), My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic and Adventure Time have spanned across audiences of ALL ages. All of these shows bring in people from 3-years-old girls to men in their 50’s. That’s not even a demographic.
The instant any network puts thought and serious character development into a show audiences clamor for more. Why? Because they’re hungry for quality storytelling told through 2D animation which the movie industry isn’t delivering. Disney has been the only US based studio releasing 2D animated feature films in recent history (the last one being a Winnie-the-Pooh, which lets face it, wasn’t targeted for an audience above the age of 5 or die hard Pooh fans).
So let’s take a look at what the 2D team has been given:
The Princess and the Frog - The racial/historical implications brought about by the film was one draw back the film had going against it. Many were totally turned off by the film glossing over what life was like in 1920’s New Orleans, and thus those irritated by it spent their money elsewhere. That’s just one problem. The other glaringly obvious problem the film had, was the fact it wasn’t as solid a story as say…The Lion King, or The Little Mermaid, or Aladdin. Disney knew this going in and yet execs didn’t want to take the time to fix it. So they sent the go ahead and poured all efforts into Tangled - a 3D Princess feature film which grossed over 300 MILLON more than it’s predecessor (the total box office number being $590,721,936)
So then we have a wildly popular movie in 3D that grossed millions, and people assume it’s popularity is because of the fact it’s in 3D!
The reason it gained so much cash is because Disney put all it’s efforts in making damn sure that Tangled had the best EVERYTHING. Best writers, best artists, best story team, best development team - and that’s not even going into the technical aspects of the film. Disney spent $105 million on Princess and the Frog, and a measly $30 million on Winnie The Pooh. They spent a whopping $260 million on Tangled, which is OBSCENE even with the technical team and render work that had to happen. That is CRAZY. It’s almost like taking two children, sending one to a shit school while sending the other to Yale, and then getting all bent out of shape when the one you sent to a shit school isn’t doing well.
The reason Tangled did so well in comparison was because it had the best team, and in having the best team it was given ultimately given a better story, which then put more butts in the seats and money in Disney’s coffers. Let me say it again: Tangled was successful because it had the better STORY not because of being 3D.
…and lets face it, the industry rides off the coattails of ‘the Most Honorable House of Mouse’. “Oh, look! Tangled
anythingPixar(exceptCars) did well, and it’s a 3D movie! Let’s make our film 3D too.”
3D animation, 2D animation and mo-cap are great tools by which to make films, but these tools are not what makes or breaks the success of a film. What makes a movie successful or unsuccessful is STORY.
Okay…stepping off my soap box now.