I was wondering what your soruce(s) are about the closing of the 2D Animation studios, and the breakup of the relationship with Pixar. Also, could it be that all the 2D is being shipped overseas to Japan?
As for a good 2D film prior to Lilo and Stitch, IMHO “Emporer’s New Groove” was hysterical. It didn’t get as much attention as some of the other Disney films, though. You should give it a chance!
My sources are linked right in the OP. 
Not mentioned in the OP is that Disney Feature Animation Florida recently shut its doors. Some DISappointed employees
Man, back when I was at animation school at Sheridan in '92, the top Disney parody song had a verse:
Be our guest/
Be our guest/
Put your wallet to the test/
When it comes to making money/
Michael Eisner is the best…
You mean it’s gotten worse? I haven’t been paying attention to the field lately…
:smack: Yes, Silly Symphonies, silly me…
You’re probably thinking of Oliver and Company, from the late 80s, which also featured talking dogs. And you’re right, it did have quite a few CGI elements—mainly cars and other traffic—worked into a few scenes. (Including a big chase scene.)
There were also a couple of other CGI shots in Little Mermaid—a ship at the beggining of the film, and a rock formation near the end.
These were all done with what we’d call “Cel Rendering” nowadays.
And, personally, I don’t think that 2D animation is doomed…well, all animation. Just look at Anime. American animation’s outlook, on the other hand, is getting increasingly bleak.
Well it’d be just fine if they stopped following the industry standard of making the same garbage over and over.
Ironically, both Pixar and Lucasfilm are each planning on starting a 2D Animation branch to each of their empires.
Just wanted to disagree with Eutychus about Pixar needing Disney. At this point in the game, Pixar is the name in computer-animated movies, and IMO could sell a new movie just on their brand alone. Even for casual moviegoers who can’t tell one studio from another, a new trailer “from the creators of Toy Story, Monsters Inc., and Finding Nemo” is enough to make people sit up and take notice. It doesn’t hurt that Pixar has a really talented writing team, and is able to make even the silliest ideas work in big ways (How many people thought Finding Nemo was an odd premise? I know I did…). Disney has the nostalgia factor in its favor, sure, but anyone who had to go watch Dinosaur or The Hunchback of Notre Dame (what were they thinking?!) knows that it’s no longer a guarantee of quality entertainment.
I’d like to see the Disney/Pixar partnership continue, as I think the two have good synergy together, but I don’t doubt for a second that a Pixar movie distributed by Warner Bros. would be just as entertaining and far-reaching as anything Pixar has done to date.
(Further proof that Michael Eisner is out of it: he told Disney shareholders in 2003 that he believed Finding Nemo might end up as a dud, and that would be a good thing, since it would give Pixar a “reality check.” The man is clearly clueless, vindictive, or both.)
For an amazing long time, Disney was The Official Animation/Family Film Corporation of the world. A crappy Disney film and a great non-Disney film would be released the same summer, critics would beg people to see the better movie, but it would fail and Disney’s would rake in the dough.
This kind of situation turns people into jerks. E.g., the Pooh case, having the rep. of being the hardest bargainers and lowest paying studio, etc. Look at how lousy of a deal Pixar got. Disney stills thinks it’s Disney and wanted to basically continue the agreement: Pixar does all the real work, Disney gets most of the money, rights, etc.
But the world has changed in recent years. People have stopped taking their kids to see the latest Disney film unless it has good reviews. Other companies routinely put out family films that do amazingly well. And others also do the video distribution a lot better.
But Disney hasn’t woken up. You don’t want your (shareholder/board director/Disney relation) company run by jerks (or crooks). A lot of house clearing is needed. Unfortunately, shareholder votes and board elections retrench things rather than clear them out.
Disney is dying. Their theme parks have been a joke for decades. They have nothing to go with.
So Disney needs Pixar desperately. Pixar needs Disney like a hole in the head.
Even stranger is the fact that Pixar was originally the computer-animation division of Lucasfilm.
Go see Triplets of Belleville. If you’re really thinking about it, you can spot what’s being done with CGI assistance, but the movie carries you along so much and has such a consistent aesthetic it’s artistically seamless. That’s the movie for people who wonder if 2D is dead: In the right hands, absolutely not.
And Eisner’s always been a megalomaniac. There was a string of stories back in the early 90s about how he was getting close to nominating his suggestion for successor (or perhaps “heir apparent”). He never did, possibly because his relationships with Katzenberg and Ovitz blew up in his face. I personally think he won’t leave his Disney office under any circumstances other than being dragged in a burlap sack with wrists and ankles shackled.
Ooh! Are they signing up volunteers? 
Yeah, I was thinking of Roy’s role as I was reading this thread, too. I should buy a share before the meeting so I can sit in. I doubt if they will be showing the best parts on the ABC news.
A lot of you are, as evidence of Disney’s decline, talking about the decline of its animation department, but does Disney need its animation department anymore? It seems like Disney could stop animation altogether and still do well.
But would it be Disney then? Sure, it would be DisneyCorp Worldwide Holding Company, but would there be ANYTHING to distinguish it from, say, Berkshire Hathaway if that happened?
Disney is a beloved company because it creates animated and live-action features that people hold close to their hearts. If they were to cease movie-making completely, in 20 years they’ll have no more public goodwill than an anonymous mutual fund.
Well, they’d still own the rights to all those characters.
Disney was really in a no win situation – the current deal is ending, and the big profits from Pixar were going to be over no matter what. From the LA Times :
Going forward, Pixar was going to treat Disney as a fee based distributor – no massive profits would go to Disney at all. Disney probably would have gone for that – 10% of something is better than 0% of nothting. The kicker was that Jobs was insisting that Incredibles and Cars (movies as to which Disney currently will get a huge chunk of profits, plus a distribution fee) be brought into the new, distribution fee only, deal. Pixar was basically telling Disney, give us a couple of hundred million dollars (Disney’s profit from the next two movies), and in exchange will let you distribute our future movies for a 10% fee. If I were a Disney stockholder, I’d be happy with the decision – I’ll take a couple hundred million in profits in the next few years over some piddley future distribution fee any day of the week. Plus, I hear that Jobs doesn’t like Eisner, at all, and is a friend of Roy’s.
If anyone still cares, here’s another commentary on Eisner’s mismanagement of Disney:
Regarding the posts above on whether Disney still needs animated features:
Well, for one thing, Warren Buffett is a much better manager than Michael Eisner. But to be serious, jayjay has it – the important concept here is brand equity, which is not just some fuzzy, feel-good notion, but has actual monetary value. (How do you think Nike gets away with their exhorbitant shoe prices? How does Coca Cola distinguish itself for selling, basically, sugar water?) Specifically as it applies to our discussion, “Disney comes close to ownership of the family entertainment film position/brand as well as the children’s market.” A corollary to a strong brand is customer loyalty, and by diluting the strength of your brand, over time you’re potentially pissing future profits down the drain.
Breaking news: Comcast Cable has offered to merge with Disney for $66 Billion.