"Cartoons"

[VoiceOfReasonPast]

What did they expect? They haven't done anything high-profile with their actual mascot characters in decades.
Outside of Kingdom Hearts, of course.

[McGinnis]

Yeah but it's not just Mickey or Goofy or Donald Duck. It's Aladdin and Simba and Beauty and the Beast and all that shit they generated themselves. They found that no one wanted to come to the parks for the actual Disney stuff, it's Pixar they wanted.

[TheManWithNoPlan]

They’re target audience prefer CGI animation because even though it’s 30 years old at this point it’s still more current then hand drawn animation.

[Gendo's Ocular Dickhole]

They’re target audience prefer CGI animation because even though it’s 30 years old at this point it’s still more current then hand drawn animation.

That's largely due to 20+ years of conditioning current audiences to CGI, getting more butts into seats than 2D animation could ever hope to reach (in the West). Disney/Pixar are centrally responisible for the homogenization of this push, which is why the overwhelming majority of Western animated works lean heavily towards 3D pulling in the most finances.

[VoiceOfReasonPast]

So you're telling me there's no overlap between Disneytards and weebs.

[ebin namefag]

So you're telling me there's no overlap between Disneytards and weebs.

There actually probably isn't. Beyond the "I'll consoom fucking everything" types (which TOBY FAIRE is all Disney fans) weebs are thumbing their nose at Yidsney trash just like they do capeshit while burger cartoon fans refuse to see quality.

[McGinnis]

They’re target audience prefer CGI animation because even though it’s 30 years old at this point it’s still more current then hand drawn animation.

They don't prefer CGI animation, it's just that CGI animation is all they're being offered by studios because it's simpler and easier to create. Saying they 'prefer' CGI animation is like if McDonald's only sold Big Macs and you said McDonald's customers prefer Big Macs. Of course they prefer them, that's the only thing they're being offered

That's largely due to 20+ years of conditioning current audiences to CGI, getting more butts into seats than 2D animation could ever hope to reach (in the West)

The traditionally animated Aladdin and The Lion King made more money for Disney than the CGI animated Toy Story or Toy Story 2, at least as far as the movies themselves are concerned.

The reason they gradually pushed CG films at the expense of hand drawn is because to make hand drawn animation takes some skill. You've got to know how to draw and you've got to know how things move. You've got to understand proper shading techniques and lighting, and you've got to draw every single frame in that movie. With CG you don't have to do that. The models are all algorithmically shaded and lit and you just render the frames. They're like puppets. Most of the 'skill' goes into doing the character design

[VoiceOfReasonPast]

They're like puppets. Most of the 'skill' goes into doing the character design

And even those become more and more samey as everything is converted to the CalArts standard.
This is all really done to ensure that every animator and designer is fully replacable.

[McGinnis]

Well, I think the trade-off is that, while the films are 'easier' to create, you do need to know the technology and the technology is expensive. With traditional animation, especially now with digital ink and paint, all you really need is pencil and paper and a copy of Toon Boom or Flash or whatever the hell they use now.

[Liar Revealed]

AFAIK, Disney were still animating their 2D films domestically in-house. They could have tried outsourcing that shit to Japan or Korea. Some people would have cried sell-out or whatever, but it's better than just shutting everything down and going all-in on 3D.