Monday, August 6, 2007
2D Is Dead... Dead I Tell You!
This is really an addendum to a sentence I wrote in the Sunday Box Office results for this weekend.
Anyone wonder what Michael Eisner was thinking last Sunday when he opened his copy of the Hollywood Reporter to see the grosses of the "Simpson's Movie"?
Did he faint? Was he in denial? Or did he have a realization that hand-drawn animation isn't dead, despite his attempt to frame it for bad storytelling?
It turns out if you have a good story with likable characters people will pay money to see them. I guess when you let writers come up with plot-lines and not let Suits decide where the story goes you can come up with compelling tales that audiences will lay down their hard earned cash for.
Who'd a thunk it?
Mr. Eisner? Mr. Eisner? Mr. Eisner would you please wake up and get off the floor...
Posted by Honor Hunter at 12:40 AM
Labels: Animation, Hand Drawn, Michael Eisner, Simpsons
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I do not think that Simpsons is sucessfull because it´s in 2d. That has nothing to do with the art of animation. Why shoud they have made it in 3D? The tv series was always in 2d, so there was no discussion about the animation subject.
But it is right that 2d films can tell storys as good as 3d films (and i think even better), unlike Eisner said once.
Disney does this kind of promotion in reverse, making TV series only after a film is successful. Its the art of marketing and promotion in action here, not the animation style.
I really wish you'd have more tact instead of this immature "I told you so" post. You're responding to some comments by Eisner that you don't cite.
To add insult to injury your argument is saying that 2D animation was one of the major factors in the success of The Simpsons film, and not the fact that there has been almost twenty years on-going promotion of the characters and stories on television. Any film, no matter the visual style, will have some success with time tested characters like The Simpsons.
My argument is that Eisner blamed the failure of the Disney animated films on the fact that they were hand drawn, when the Pixar films and others were becoming the rage. He didn't take a step back and say "Wait a minute, could the stories we've made have been bad?"... if he'd have looked at Pixars films or their creedo it was about story. It always has been.
You took a major leep of logic in saying that I said it was a success because it was 2D. I never said it was a major factor... what I was saying and you missed is that it wasn't the medium.
It was the story.
I'll try to be more clear next time.
But the story in the Simpsons movie sucks.
Post a Comment