Pixar’s John Lasseter Touts Traditional Animation at AMPAS Event

COMMENTS (14)

• So now CGI is “traditional” animation? Walt Disney must be spinning in his cryo-chamber.

  Comment by Burkiss — Monday May 21, 2012 @ 11:42pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Wreck-it-Ralph is from Disney Animation not Pixar. Still looks good though.

  Comment by lefthandlucascodd — Tuesday May 22, 2012 @ 12:14am PDT  Reply to this post

  • disney animation = pixar animation, or close enough. lassiter’s in charge of both (technically he’s head of disney’s creative works altogether), and disney’s staff makes use of pixar talent often. the big difference is which office they’re in.

    Comment by haggi — Tuesday May 22, 2012 @ 3:22pm PDT  Reply to this post

    • Despite the overlap at the top, they’re still two different studios with two different cultures and two different styles of animation. Pixar emphasizes very carefully controlled arcs and timing curves, while Disney, coming out of the hand drawn tradition, emphasizes strong posing, with the details of timing and curves handled more casually.

      Comment by Kevin Baker — Tuesday May 22, 2012 @ 5:32pm PDT  Reply to this post

    • While John Lasseter is in charge of both Disney Animation and Pixar Animation, they are two completely separate studios. An animator moving from Pixar to WDAS and vice versa is almost the equivalent of an animator moving to Dreamworks. They still have to apply for the position, interview, and go through all of the normal procedures of getting hired for a job. The big difference is they get to keep their Silver Pass and skip the Disney orientation.

      Comment by Justin — Wednesday May 23, 2012 @ 11:52am PDT  Reply to this post

• “What we’re taking about are tools. Amazing tools but not really different than pencils and paper. Tools do not create art,” he added to widespread agreeement from the other panelists.

  What the f*ck is Lasseter talking about. He makes no sense and seems to be out of touch lately. I don’t know anyone that’s actually excited about Brave. Where’s Incredibles 2? I bet we will get Cars 3 before that.

  Comment by Farzan — Tuesday May 22, 2012 @ 1:00am PDT  Reply to this post

• Lasseter knows as well as anyone that traditional (real) animation is dead as a doornail, hence the need to redefine the term to include soulless CG marionettes.

  Comment by Not even the illusion of life — Tuesday May 22, 2012 @ 2:34am PDT  Reply to this post

  • Complete crap. That’s like saying the acoustic guitar is dead because of rock.

    Animators either learn to animate with a pencil, or all they’ll get when they turn on the computer is wooden garbage.

    Comment by Coffee100 — Tuesday May 22, 2012 @ 9:42am PDT  Reply to this post

    • That’s complete horse shit. Ignorance is bliss.

      Comment by Scott — Wednesday May 23, 2012 @ 7:05am PDT  Reply to this post

• No. It’s that “traditional animation” is less important than good film making. Walt’s dead, and you missed it. Time to move forward. Traditional animation can be (but rarely is) great. Same with cg animation. The relevant point of last night’s discussion is that there is no difference between great films that are animated and those that are just boring old live action (!).

  Comment by Scott — Tuesday May 22, 2012 @ 6:40am PDT  Reply to this post

• Walt is not spinning in his cryogenic chamber. He was all for technology and always searching to make the animation process more efficient. In 101 Dalmatians he used, what at the time was very controversial, the xerox machine to produce line drawings. What Lasseter is saying is that 1. the story telling and characters are key to making a successful movie, 2. the actual animation should be driven by an artists hand–that can be through pencil lead, ink or a stylus on a computer screen. In any case, the artist creates the spark of life in the characters, not dots on a space suit.

  Comment by mde — Tuesday May 22, 2012 @ 9:05am PDT  Reply to this post

• Well it seems that traditional animation doesn’t excite kids anymore that’s why they go for CG. But i think it still isn’t as flawless and smooth. That’s why i was so happy with the style they incorporated with Tangled ’cause it was as modern as CG but has that smooth, rich texture to it. They should do it more often.

  Comment by Dong — Tuesday May 22, 2012 @ 11:46pm PDT  Reply to this post

• “Pixar is “not really interested in motion capture,””

  Apparently, Lasseter is not really interested in restoring traditional animation to Disney either, as he backtracked on his statement (a few years ago) that he was going to restore the art form to its rightful place in Disney. With all these numerous, stiff-rigged, CG flicks bombarding audiences mnow, is it too much to ask for just a theatrical traditional animated feature once in a while???

  I’m going to buy Arrietty on DVD tomorrow and try to wipe the name of John Lasseter out of my mind for a while.

  Comment by kenneth — Wednesday May 23, 2012 @ 9:15pm PDT  Reply to this post

• To kenneth: I don’t think Lasseter backtracked his statement (Paperman is living proof that he still wants Disney to take risks, its a hybrid of both computer and traditional animation), it’s the Hollywood system that’s to blame for the majority of animated films nowadays being CG. Always remember that the technique does not make a good movie (as Lasseter would say), it’s the story that makes the film work. With the exception of Disney and Pixar, the majority of animation studios run by big corporations (DreamWorks, Fox’s Blue Sky, Sony Pictures Animation), only do CG animated movies that are nothing but pop culture references and toilet humor and don’t do any other technique and genre but CG and comedy respectfully, and it’s all because of money, ignorance, and greed.

  Comment by Matthew — Sunday August 19, 2012 @ 12:02pm PDT  Reply to this post