Welcome to the Bandwagon
As “Lion King�? was one of the highest grossing films of all time, studios started clamoring to get in on the action. When Disney studio chief Katzenberg bolted to form a new company, including an animation operation, with Spielberg and David Geffen, and 20th Century Fox decided to get serious and bring in Don Bluth and Gary Goldman with an Arizona studio, animation artists were suddenly in high demand, and their salaries shot way up.

Fox had a hit with “Anastasia�? in late 1997, and a year later, Dreamworks did well with the traditional debut, “Prince of Egypt�?. However, like Disney and every other studio, they were unable to repeat the success of “The Lion King�?. Fox shut down the Bluth/Goldman animation in 2000 as “Titan A.E.�? beat Disney’s “Atlantis�? and “Treasure Planet�? to being another sci-fi animation box office disappointment.

A New Hope
In late 1995, Disney released Pixar’s “Toy Story�?. In 1998, Dreamworks released PDI’s “Antz�? just before Disney released Pixar’s “A Bug’s Life�?. Fox released a CGI hit in 2002 with “Ice Age�?. Dreamworks has looked to PDI for future animation hits, as Disney seems to be doing with Pixar, since Pixar’s productions seem to make more and more money, culminating in this year’s “Finding Nemo�?, which has surpassed “The Lion King�? in the box office numbers. Clearly, studios are looking to the people that made “Ice Age�?, “Shrek�?, and “Finding Nemo�? to lead animation from here.

Analysts need to take a closer look, however. As plenty of people are yelling from the rooftops- it’s not the medium, it’s the message. Story and marketing matter more. “Treasure Planet�? and “Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas�? both had plenty of CGI mixed in, and underperformed. “Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within�? was CGI and died a painful box-office death. Conversely, “Lilo & Stitch�? was traditional with very few frills, and was a major hit, and now “Brother Bear�? is performing well. It would be a cruel twist if the studio that made those films - the one in Florida - is shuttered in a couple of months.

Animation is the heart of Disney. It has been used to feed content to most of the rest of the corporation, and the artists who have created the settings and given life to the characters can do more for Disney than just a film every couple of years. If Disney retrains the staff it has left, they could continue to give Disney a unique edge as an in-house factory for content to be used in interactive games, websites, toys, DVDs, enhanced CDs, television programs, theme park attractions, and even films not labeled as “feature animation.�?

The Secret What?
In mid-2000, coinciding with the release of the creatively titled “Dinosaur�?, Disney announced the creation of The Secret Lab, and in-house special effects/animation operation that was instrumental in creating “Dinosaur�?. This appeared to be a reconstitution/replacement of Dream Quest Images, a special-effects company Disney had bought, and Disney’s own Buena Vista Visual Effects. Even though “Dinosaur�? had an impressive box-office take, the film had been so expensive to make that analysts had been hoping for a much bigger gross. Announcements were made that The Secret Lab had been closed. It all seemed so strange to me until someone (and I have no way of knowing if this is true) told me it was all games to take a write-off and clean house.

Whatever.

What Now?
The thing is, I thought the idea of The Secret Lab was a good one. Yeah, I want to see Disney make more fairy tale animation blockbuster extravaganzas, but I think in lieu of heavy animation production, Disney should keep that part of the company’s heritage alive and not rely on outside companies for main, corporation-driving content. Disney is a unique brand name, and it is hard to keep it that way if your letting contractors do all of your creative work instead of dedicated, longtime, in-house staff. Use what’s left of the animation staff for creative projects throughout the corporation.

Yes, the staff needs to adapt. As I said, retrain them. Sign them to long-term contracts if you’re worried they will take the training and run.

This distinction between “3-D�? and “2-D�? animation is fading, just as the distinction between animation and live action is fading. In “Song of the South�?, it’s easy to see - provided you have the laserdisc from Japan - the difference between animation and live-action. It’s not as easy to see it in the two “The Matrix�? sequels, “The Lord of the Rings�?, or “Star Wars: Episode II�?. This is why Disney should cultivate an animation staff that can work in different media, and pick the media to match the story and art direction.

Sometimes, a story should be told through what looks like a moving painting- traditional animation. Another story might be better presented through live-action augmented heavily with CGI (or, CGI augmented with some live action!).

So, while I think it would be a mistake to declare traditional animation dead, it is clear that a third golden age is unlikely, simply because technology has moved on and the medium has morphed. Traditional animation still has artistic merit, and should be used accordingly. There are fewer traditional animated features being planned, but there is more animation in features now than ever before. Studios like Disney need to look at animation as a whole medium, not as traditional vs. CGI, and consider it a tool for any film, just like musical scores. Disney especially needs to look at the animation staff as filmmakers and artists, not just “cartoon�? makers. Hopefully, this will lead to more visually stimulating film imagery and imagery for Disney’s other products.