RebelTaxi: How Rugrats Ended 2D Disney Animation

[Alyce: Old Media Enthusiast]

(language)



A pretty good analysis on the animated tv show to movie boom of the late 90's and how it hurt Disney in the long run

[BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps]

Watched the whole thing. Quick thoughts:

- Elsa is an incredibly expressive character. She doesn't look like a "glassy eyed doll" at all, the animation on her is actually very good.

- Yeah, the Rugrats movie lost me when they decided to write Tommy as an attempted murderer. Out of character for him, to say the least.

- A lot of those cheapo film versions of TV cartoons were hit-or-miss. I remember liking the Recess movie well enough, but then again it was a fun show. Doug's and Hey Arnold's were just boring. The PPG film had slick animation but there was no reason to go back over the origin story, they explain the premise enough in the opening.

- Tai's arc was the best thing about the Digimon movie. As usual.

- Butt Ugly Martians. The title tells you all you need to know, and whether or not you'll like it.

- TV adaptions, in one form or another, aren't going away anytime soon. I can see Rebel's point about the impact they probably made, but I imagine Pixar's success (and DreamWorks, to an extent) were the biggest reasons why Disney shifted to 3D. The change was probably always going to happen eventually, with or without stuff like the Doug or Teacher's pet films.

- Given how much more fluid CGI animation has become since the first Toy Story (early Andy, now he looked like a creepy doll. Compare him to Moana, and how lively she seems), Disney probably could make a 2D film now and have it be a decent sized hit. But I think the studio likes the massive amount of detailing, and that "sheen" that CG tech allows. Even though the animators could recreate a similar level of detailing drawing the film by hand, it would take far longer to produce.

- Also, Princess and the Frog is really underrated. Not a perfect film, but it's an entertaining throwback.

[A Platypus Rave is Correct]

Jun 27, 2017 18:58:48 GMT -5 BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps said:

- TV adaptions, in one form or another, aren't going away anytime soon. I can see Rebel's point about the impact they probably made, but I imagine Pixar's success (and DreamWorks, to an extent) were the biggest reasons why Disney shifted to 3D. The change was probably always going to happen eventually, with or without stuff like the Doug or Teacher's pet films.
.

Not to mention compared to how Home on the Range and then Princess and the Frog under-preformed (though is it really surprising Home on the Range under-preformed?) it isn't surprising why they swapped to 3d animation.

[fw91]

so like how did child services not step in after the babies' disappearance made the news?

[Powerline]

So, like, how is it the Rugrats fault? Just because they had a cheaply made animated film that did well? It wasn't the first. And yeah, it might have done better than any before at the time for its budget (chump change compared to the animated films of today), but there were crummy animated films that did well before the Rugrats film. It also doesn't help he doesn't even mention the Rugrats or any of their films again in the entire second half. Like...that's such a blatant clickbait move to put blame on the Rugrats in the title, provide no quotes or sound bites of someone at Disney claiming his point, and then just kinda make some loose statistic connection. If the whole point was gonna be "Disney should go back to 2D", you could've made some minimal changes to the vid. But nope, gotta get dat clickbait. "Remember 'Bobby's World?' 'The Rugrats'?  Disney should do another 2D film."

Disney should've stuck to their guns during that time? Dude, Treasure Planet, Atlantis; The Lost Empire? They stuck to their guns and got financially gutted for it. They TRIED to stick out from the crowd! Those two films, to this day, are still considered some of the most unique they put out.  He makes it sound like Disney just put out low-budget hand-drawn animated films up until Brother Bear/Home on the Range, and that's far from the truth.

I like most of this guy's stuff, but every once in awhile, he says some WAY off-base stuff and doesn't do a very good job of backing it up. This was borderlining on MatPat levels of "outrageous claim, minimal evidence, tack on some 'go back to the old way' hoo-rah, and rely on his name".

Man...I didn't plan on getting that worked up. I actually just had one minor issue then as I watched it back it was just one "...pffft, c'mon" after another.

[Deleted]

If anything, Disney was considering phasing out animation in general several times before the time period he mentioned.

You must realize that Disney actually got decked out by Don Bluth, a director known for quality but did not make any true blockbuster film, and even cheaper animation (the Care Bears Movie was one of the worst looking American animated movies ever but cleaned house) during the 1980s than what was from the 1990s.

The real reason that Disney phased out traditional animation was that Michael Eisner started making films that lost money, and tarnished their reputation with those straight to video sequels. Sure, the early 2000s had ambitious projects, but Atlantis & Treasure Planet were critical and financial failures, and I think the TV shows getting movies was merely just taking them due to low production costs and adding a few extra bits of eye candy. Less said for Home On The Range, the better.

It's also dumb to meander to other things. For example, The Digimon Movie was arguably the cheapest idea for a film because they took three isolated short films and patched them together. And some studios went with poor CGI animation because they felt it'd stand them out.

So, yeah; it's click bait.

TL;DR - Other studios didn't kill 2D Disney animation. Disney killed 2D animation.

[Deleted]

It went......in a direction I wasn't expecting.

I agree with it to a point. Unlike the '80s, when their animated films were "just there," Disney was on top and in control in the '90s. Everything else was just everything else. Rugrats The Movie did very well, and that did lead to a slew of subpar-to-good animated movies cashing in on the TV-to-film gimmick, and it probably did saturate the theatres to the point where even Disney theatrical films took a hit. But unlike in the '80s, when other movies doing well (An American Tail and Bluth's mini empire of hits) led Disney to reinvest in its theatrical product, Disney decided to invest in a little something called Pixar. As those films began to rise, their own 2D animation.....began to fall.

But it's just the end of Disney's *theatrical* 2D animation. Disney still does 2D animation - on TV. In fact, if anything, what helped dilute 2D animation was Disney's decision back in the '80s to create a television animation division - and a bit later, branching out into new home video productions (as DisneyToons). Before then, animation was ALL done by the same people - TV, theatrical shorts, movies. Smaller budgets for TV, and in the cases where the TV division found its way to the big screen it looked worse than the real theatrical releases. That doesn't help the overall brand.

Disney's inevitable move away from theatrical 2D animation was created by themselves; though at the time there was really not much computer animation happening, and it wasn't really seen as its own form of animation.....just an enhancement of 2D animation. Hell, they fired the guy who tried to create a CGI animated movie - some guy named John Lasseter, who went on to work for Steve Jobs and.....well, if you're reading this you probably know how that ended up.

[HMARK Center]

The idea of DIsney trying to follow trends rather than make their own is one of the main critiques many of us theme park fans have had for awhile now.

[Vice honcho room temperature]

Teacher's Pet... how the hell did that get a movie

[Joe Neglia]

The decade between Tarzan and Princess and the Frog was one of the strangest and ultimately most lackluster of Disney's history. They spent 10 years trying to do everything except what they were good at, and we ended up with a long string of films that just don't feel like "Disney" films. Starting in 1999 with Fantasia 2000 and running through Dinosaur, Emperor's New Clothes, Atlantis, Lilo & Stitch, Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, Home on the Range, Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons and ending with Bolt in 2009, it was like they actively fought against making what they knew. Emperor comes close sometimes and holds up to a degree, and Lilo was the one true exception in the whole run, and why it's the only one of that list that still has marketing power. But the rest? 2D or 3D, they didn't feel "Disney" and it showed.

[A Platypus Rave is Correct]

Jun 28, 2017 10:16:36 GMT -5 Joe Neglia said:

. Emperor comes close sometimes and holds up to a degree,

That just reminds me of what Disney did to Kingdom of the Sun... basically completely slashing the plot until it was completely unrecognizable ... but at the same time keeping just enough so Roger Allers could never actually make the movie he wanted.

Not to mention pretty much cutting all of the song's Sting wrote for it since they no longer fit save for one in the ending credits.

[Deleted]

Jun 28, 2017 10:07:29 GMT -5 Vice honcho room temperature said:

Teacher's Pet... how the hell did that get a movie

Nathan Lane voiced the main character, I guess.

[Deleted]

Jun 28, 2017 10:24:42 GMT -5 A Platypus Rave is Correct said:

Jun 28, 2017 10:16:36 GMT -5 Joe Neglia said:

. Emperor comes close sometimes and holds up to a degree,

That just reminds me of what Disney did to Kingdom of the Sun... basically completely slashing the plot until it was completely unrecognizable ... but at the same time keeping just enough so Roger Allers could never actually make the movie he wanted.

Not to mention pretty much cutting all of the song's Sting wrote for it since they no longer fit save for one in the ending credits.

Dude, are we the same person? You literally zeroed in on the one thing in Madison's post that I did, with the exact same thought.

[lildude8218]

where's my Fillmore! movie?

[A Platypus Rave is Correct]

Jun 28, 2017 12:14:51 GMT -5 @knapp said:

Jun 28, 2017 10:24:42 GMT -5 A Platypus Rave is Correct said:

That just reminds me of what Disney did to Kingdom of the Sun... basically completely slashing the plot until it was completely unrecognizable ... but at the same time keeping just enough so Roger Allers could never actually make the movie he wanted.

Not to mention pretty much cutting all of the song's Sting wrote for it since they no longer fit save for one in the ending credits.

Dude, are we the same person? You literally zeroed in on the one thing in Madison's post that I did, with the exact same thought.

[Lupin the Third]

Yeah, Rugrats had nothing to do with 2D Disney Animation's death. Disney basically owned 89-99. They had the Disney Renaissance, basically the era of probably some of the best Disney movies ever.

And in television, they had the Disney Afternoon during that time, with great shows like Gummi Bears, Chip & Dale's Rescue Rangers, DuckTales, Darkwing Duck, TaleSpin, and so forth.

Then, it just feels like they got lazy. Goof Troop, Quack Pack, Bonkers, Shnookums & Meat (which many feel is a complete ripoff of Ren & Stimpy, ironically), Mighty Ducks, and so forth. And the movies after Tarzan really didn't hold up, save for Emperor's New Groove, like Madison said. And maybe Lilo & Stitch, but I didn't really watch that one.

[HMARK Center]

Jun 28, 2017 1:20:53 GMT -5 Powerline said:

So, like, how is it the Rugrats fault? Just because they had a cheaply made animated film that did well? It wasn't the first. And yeah, it might have done better than any before at the time for its budget (chump change compared to the animated films of today), but there were crummy animated films that did well before the Rugrats film. It also doesn't help he doesn't even mention the Rugrats or any of their films again in the entire second half. Like...that's such a blatant clickbait move to put blame on the Rugrats in the title, provide no quotes or sound bites of someone at Disney claiming his point, and then just kinda make some loose statistic connection. If the whole point was gonna be "Disney should go back to 2D", you could've made some minimal changes to the vid. But nope, gotta get dat clickbait. "Remember 'Bobby's World?' 'The Rugrats'?  Disney should do another 2D film."

Disney should've stuck to their guns during that time? Dude, Treasure Planet, Atlantis; The Lost Empire? They stuck to their guns and got financially gutted for it. They TRIED to stick out from the crowd! Those two films, to this day, are still considered some of the most unique they put out.  He makes it sound like Disney just put out low-budget hand-drawn animated films up until Brother Bear/Home on the Range, and that's far from the truth.

I like most of this guy's stuff, but every once in awhile, he says some WAY off-base stuff and doesn't do a very good job of backing it up. This was borderlining on MatPat levels of "outrageous claim, minimal evidence, tack on some 'go back to the old way' hoo-rah, and rely on his name".

Man...I didn't plan on getting that worked up. I actually just had one minor issue then as I watched it back it was just one "...pffft, c'mon" after another.

I think the point regarding stuff like Treasure Planet/Atlantic/etc. is that yes, Disney did try to stick to their guns on that front, but they also contributed a lot to the growing glut of pretty cheap animated films derived from Saturday morning cartoons during the same era, in effect poisoning their own well and harming their more marquee productions.

That said, it's debatable on that front, too, since those flicks also did suffer a bit on the critical side to begin with, whereas most of the rest of the "Renaissance Age" films they made were well reviewed, and yeah, one could easily point out how Rugrats certainly wasn't the first film of its type to come down the pike, just the one that stuck out for its particular era.

[Welfare Willis]

I wonder if I can relate a cartoon to something completely unrelated...

How Ren and Stimpy causes acne.

Did the Brady Bunch Kids break into the Watergate hotel?

How Hammerman led to 9/11.

[Joe Neglia]

Jun 28, 2017 20:42:25 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

one could easily point out how Rugrats certainly wasn't the first film of its type to come down the pike, just the one that stuck out for its particular era.

For sure. This wasn't anything new, from things like A Man Called Flintstone all the way back in the 60s through all those Looney Tunes cut-n-paste movies to He-Man and Transformers theatricals (and the previously-mentioned Care Bears) through Beavis and Butt-Head Do America and South Park: The Movie.

[Dub H]

Jun 29, 2017 1:23:07 GMT -5 Welfare Willis said:

I wonder if I can relate a cartoon to something completely unrelated...

How Ren and Stimpy causes acne.

Did the Brady Bunch Kids break into the Watergate hotel?

How Hammerman led to 9/11.

This isn't completely unrelated.You can say it is a stretch but there is a connection