First look at Rapunzel Unbraided and other future films.....

disneyboy · Post by **disneyboy** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:54 am

I would really question the validity of ths site. I remeber the old AnimatedNews.com, and it had a complete breakdown of the progress these animated movies were in.

First, Fantasia '06 is dead. W/out Roy there i dont see that happening.
The Snow Queen also died i beleive. Glen Keane was working on it, but it never got off the ground and then he went to Rapunzel. Don Quixote is dead or semi dead. The Brizzi Bros. were tied to the project but they left, and i assume the project left w/ them.

As far as the cheapquels, who knows, but i CAN say that, due to a source which will go namless, the Australian studio is apprently becoming "too expensive for Disney to maintain", so Disney is now looking into closing Australia, which would put a dent into any DTVs.

Kram Nebuer · Post by **Kram Nebuer** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:43 am

disneyboy wrote:I would really question the validity of ths site. I remeber the old AnimatedNews.com, and it had a complete breakdown of the progress these animated movies were in.

First, Fantasia '06 is dead. W/out Roy there i dont see that happening.
The Snow Queen also died i beleive. Glen Keane was working on it, but it never got off the ground and then he went to Rapunzel. Don Quixote is dead or semi dead. The Brizzi Bros. were tied to the project but they left, and i assume the project left w/ them.

As far as the cheapquels, who knows, but i CAN say that, due to a source which will go namless, the Australian studio is apprently becoming "too expensive for Disney to maintain", so Disney is now looking into closing Australia, which would put a dent into any DTVs.

I was just about to say the same things. I went to the same site, I think it was called animated-movies.com by a guy named Olivier Mouroux or something like that. He had a lot of good valid information including histories of the movies, voice cast lists, and behind the scenes info, but sadly

for some reason he couldn't keep the site up and it has ended.

Then I came here to UD!

I read about most of the movies listed on that Chinese site at animated-movies.com and I also doubt if any of this is true. disneyboy was right about what's dead. Don Quixote has been planned for decades, but no one could get a good screenplay because apparently the book was too dark (I studied some of the stories in my Spanish class and they all seem fine and G to me). Since those brothers left, no one has picked up production and it sits unfinished. I remember Angel and Her No Good Sister. It was also called Once in a Blue Moon and it used animation and puppetry. Dolly Parton was a voice and some other people I don't remember. I know Abraham Lincoln was a character. THe project was done at the Animation Studios in Florida, but was stopped b/c well everyone knows that place has closed

. I remember reading about Antonious, Enchanted (was going to have Susan Sarandon[sp?] as the queen), Fraidy Cats, The Lady of the Lake, The Emperor and the Nightingale, The Snow Queen, and the Three Pigs, but there wasn't much information about them. The Three Pigs was based on a funny children's book of the well known tale.

The only valid information on that Chinese site is the info on what's already been produced. I know there will be a Heffalumps movie and a Mulan 3 and some of the other obvious films, but some of the other sequels scare me, and I doubt if they're really in production. I mean what more can you do with Cinderella 3 and Peter Pan 3? I know with Sleeping Beauty, there is more to the story. The Charles Perrault version continues with Sleeping Beauty and the Prince's wedding, then they have two kids and one of them is supposed to be named Aurora. THen the Prince goes to war and his mother, apparently a female ogre, takes care of Sleeping Beauty and the kids and eats the kids then the Prince comes home and is mad with his mother so she throws herself into a pit of fire. Or something like that. I think this story was included on the second disc of SB. Anyhow, I conclude by saying that this site hasn't been correctly updated and shouldn't be viewed as prjoects written in stone yet.

Mermaid Kelly · Post by **Mermaid Kelly** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 2:41 pm

DreamerQ18 wrote:whats with all the sequals????

2006 　【Mulan 3
2007　【Cinderella III
2008　【The Jungle Book 3
2008　【Peter Pan 3
2008　【The Little Mermaid III
Herclues 2 The Trojan War
Dumbo2
Sleeping Beauty 2
Pete's Dragon II
Oliver & Company II

Well my question is will these sequals be in 2d or cgi, oh god that would be horrible to see computer generated Cinderella 3, The Jungle Book 3, Peter Pan 3, The Little Mermaid III, and others!!!!!!

*Shivers*

now if done in proper 2d, I see nothing wrong with these sequals

Also that Rapunzel reminds me of Fiona, especially with the square-neck dress

Paka · Post by **Paka** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:04 pm

Loomis wrote:
reyquila wrote:I don't care much for all this hysteria regarding sequels. You guys are sounding like its heretic from Disney to try to make money, when that's the obviuos purpose of any company.

It's simple. You don't like it, don's buy it. But enough of this hipocresy.
Thank you, kind sir/madam.

I've been saying that for years here, but I'm afraid it falls on deaf ears.

Most think that somehow a sequel will ruin the original, but that is impossible. Especially if the original is as good as the fans claim it to be.

As reyquila has so aptly put it, Disney is out to make money. And that means sequels. Luckily, most of them HAVE been DTVs - so you can choose to not look at them at all.

I don't think Disney are doing enough theatrical sequels. Let's start building some franchises here!

*sigh* Yeah, because money is all that matters in life.

Must've forgotten.

Maerj · Post by **Maerj** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:27 pm

Paka wrote:
Loomis wrote: Thank you, kind sir/madam.

I've been saying that for years here, but I'm afraid it falls on deaf ears.

Most think that somehow a sequel will ruin the original, but that is impossible. Especially if the original is as good as the fans claim it to be.

As reyquila has so aptly put it, Disney is out to make money. And that means sequels. Luckily, most of them HAVE been DTVs - so you can choose to not look at them at all.

I don't think Disney are doing enough theatrical sequels. Let's start building some franchises here!
*sigh* Yeah, because money is all that matters in life.

Must've forgotten.

Well, if you are a major corporation it is one of the main things, yes!

I wouldn't put too much credit in that list from that Japanese website, it looks like a rumor site. For all of the most accurate news always check out http://www.ultimatedisney.com

As for the Rapunzel pic, it looks like it was taken from an animatic or a rough version that may have been sent across the net. The final product will look good, they can animate 3D projects as they proved with Dinosaur which was visually stunning.

Loomis · Post by **Loomis** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:54 pm

Maerj wrote:
Paka wrote: *sigh* Yeah, because money is all that matters in life.

Must've forgotten.
Well, if you are a major corporation it is one of the main things, yes!

Exactamundo...

Despite the fact that Disney has pretty hardcore fans, who love the movies, the get-up, the parks, the western family values etc - people have to remember that Disney (and yes, that included the Sacred Uncle Walt) are only in this to earn money. They didn't make movies out of the goodness of their hearts, despite what publicity you read (because let's face it - most books on Disney are official Disney books, so strict is their policy on other people using Disney names and images).

If Disney were truly "doing it for the kids", they wouldn't be attacking medical clinics or schools for having pictures of Mickey or Disney murals hanging about, would they?

So yes, if you are a large multinational corporation spending millions on theatrical pictures that - let's be honest - haven't been returning lately, of course you are going to have a few cheaper and safer investments (i.e. sequels and DTVs to already successful franchises).

So yes, paka - for Disney money is, has, and always will be all that matters, because in case one hasn't noticed they are a big greedy corporation like any other.

I'm just sick of people treating Uncle Walt like he was some humanitarian god or something, and thinking Disney have always made stuff "just for the fans" until the Evil Empire of Eisner (EEE) took over and Turned the World to Darkness With His Evil (and Apparently Unique) Desire to Earn Money for the Company That He Runs.

CGI is earning money now, more so than traditional animation. Logic would dictate that it financially viable to make what people are seeing (and don't say "it's the story that sells", because Shrek 2 sold and it is a silly voice/furball/fart joke comedy). Brother Bear had a good story, but was let down by a lack of interest.

See the fans are the worst enemies too.
Here we have a WHOLE thread that is judging a film that hasn't even had any ANIMATION released (just one still shot). Thus, many have already condemned the big budget film comng out. So the fans are already comdemning the actions of the company before they release the film, so is it any wonder that the company doesn't push the film? Then the film comes out - "Oh no, it flopped! Trust Eisner...." cry the fans.

All the DTVS do is provide a financial supplement to the other bigger budget projects Disney has running, and keeps 2D animators employed when so many others are being laid off.

Ooh - that's EVIL isn't it???!!!

Paka · Post by **Paka** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 9:22 pm

Well, ya know, there are ways of making money and good product at the same time. No, it's not as if "Uncle Walt" was completely angelic and unique at everything he did, but most of the time, when he ventured into something, he bothered to do it right. To actually put some effort into it.

No, it ain't evil to make money, but when it becomes your one and only, absolute driving force, without a care for anything else - that's when it becomes evil. Good ol' instinctual greed - the ruin of the human race. e_e
What I don't like about modern Disney's business practices is the way they're unabashedly milking as much money from consumers as they can with as little effort and resources put into their products as possible. Cheap merchandise, shoddy maintenance, remakes, spinoffs, cheapquels, renditions of renditions of renditions. Business-wise, it seems okay to do in the short term, but you can bet anything that this miserly behavior, creative chokechain and whoring out of their properties is going to come up and bite Disney in the ass in the future. Likely sooner than later. -_-

Not to get all melodramatic now or anything, but I advise you to check out this documentary coming out this summer - The Corporation. It's a film that shows the larger ramifications of these business' decisions, when all they care about is profits.

Watch some of the clips while you're at it, too.

Joe Carioca · Post by **Joe Carioca** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 9:58 pm

Paka wrote:Well, ya know, there are ways of making money and good product at the same time. No, it's not as if "Uncle Walt" was completely angelic and unique at everything he did, but most of the time, when he ventured into something, he bothered to do it right. To actually put some effort into it.

No, it ain't evil to make money, but when it becomes your one and only, absolute driving force, without a care for anything else - that's when it becomes evil. Good ol' instinctual greed - the ruin of the human race. e_e
What I don't like about modern Disney's business practices is the way they're unabashedly milking as much money from consumers as they can with as little effort and resources put into their products as possible. Cheap merchandise, shoddy maintenance, remakes, spinoffs, cheapquels, renditions of renditions of renditions. Business-wise, it seems okay to do in the short term, but you can bet anything that this miserly behavior, creative chokechain and whoring out of their properties is going to come up and bite Disney in the ass in the future. Likely sooner than later. -_-

Amen!

DreamerQ18 · Post by **DreamerQ18** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 9:59 pm

My main point or Hysteria as somone called it is that I am not against sequals I find quite a few of them to be enjoyable. But really I hate seeing all these old movies that said at the end of the movie ( THE END) and the book closes coming back its just not right. Its taking something thats special that makes the movie a classic and trashing that is if its not done right casue like I have said there have been a few good ones.How can people say dont get upset when something so treasured is being degreated. Can anyone here really tell me that they can see a good future for some of these movies that is having a different plot from what we have seen? Thats just my whole deal.

Loomis · Post by **Loomis** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:50 pm

Paka wrote:No, it ain't evil to make money, but when it becomes your one and only, absolute driving force, without a care for anything else - that's when it becomes evil. Good ol' instinctual greed - the ruin of the human race. e_e

But that is the defining purpose of a business - to make money for the shareholders as its primary concern. So then all corporations, by definition, are "evil" (which is pretty much what I think anyways).

Paka wrote:What I don't like about modern Disney's business practices is the way they're unabashedly milking as much money from consumers as they can with as little effort and resources put into their products as possible. Cheap merchandise, shoddy maintenance, remakes, spinoffs, cheapquels, renditions of renditions of renditions. Business-wise, it seems okay to do in the short term, but you can bet anything that this miserly behavior, creative chokechain and whoring out of their properties is going to come up and bite Disney in the ass in the future. Likely sooner than later. -_-

Yeah, plus the abuse of staff; the exploitation of children in developing nations; poor benefits; minimum wages... things nobody takes a stand on. But as soon as it means "Sequel to Bambi" people take action in unison.

As I said, Disney is as bad as the rest of them, and there is no point whining here about the "quality of product". Really, as long as people are still buying, then they will keep churning out. If Disney fans were truly dedicated, then they would demand more qaulity with their wallets, and demand the conditions of staff were improved.

Disney fans are their own worst enemies. You can't complain about these things yet continue to support them.

Paka · Post by **Paka** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:47 am

Joe Carioca wrote:Amen!

Hehe... thanks, Joe!!

Loomis wrote:Yeah, plus the abuse of staff; the exploitation of children in developing nations; poor benefits; minimum wages... things nobody takes a stand on. But as soon as it means "Sequel to Bambi" people take action in unison.

As I said, Disney is as bad as the rest of them, and there is no point whining here about the "quality of product". Really, as long as people are still buying, then they will keep churning out. If Disney fans were truly dedicated, then they would demand more qaulity with their wallets, and demand the conditions of staff were improved.

Disney fans are their own worst enemies. You can't complain about these things yet continue to support them.

Too true. I just get depressed whenever I start ranting about the "evils of Disney" - because they are simply a microcosm of business and the corporate world in general, and I extend my aggression towards the whole perspective, then run out of steam, then sulk and withdraw to a corner of my room.

And yes, no one will take a stand until it very directly, very personally affects us - and by then it'll be too late. Until then people will continue to go along their daily lives, blissfully unconcerned. Grrr.... now I'm depressed again. Where's my Harry Potter book?

reyquila · Post by **reyquila** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 8:24 am

Loomis wrote:
Maerj wrote: Well, if you are a major corporation it is one of the main things, yes!
Exactamundo...

Despite the fact that Disney has pretty hardcore fans, who love the movies, the get-up, the parks, the western family values etc - people have to remember that Disney (and yes, that included the Sacred Uncle Walt) are only in this to earn money. They didn't make movies out of the goodness of their hearts, despite what publicity you read (because let's face it - most books on Disney are official Disney books, so strict is their policy on other people using Disney names and images).

If Disney were truly "doing it for the kids", they wouldn't be attacking medical clinics or schools for having pictures of Mickey or Disney murals hanging about, would they?

So yes, if you are a large multinational corporation spending millions on theatrical pictures that - let's be honest - haven't been returning lately, of course you are going to have a few cheaper and safer investments (i.e. sequels and DTVs to already successful franchises).

So yes, paka - for Disney money is, has, and always will be all that matters, because in case one hasn't noticed they are a big greedy corporation like any other.

I'm just sick of people treating Uncle Walt like he was some humanitarian god or something, and thinking Disney have always made stuff "just for the fans" until the Evil Empire of Eisner (EEE) took over and Turned the World to Darkness With His Evil (and Apparently Unique) Desire to Earn Money for the Company That He Runs.

CGI is earning money now, more so than traditional animation. Logic would dictate that it financially viable to make what people are seeing (and don't say "it's the story that sells", because Shrek 2 sold and it is a silly voice/furball/fart joke comedy). Brother Bear had a good story, but was let down by a lack of interest.

See the fans are the worst enemies too.
Here we have a WHOLE thread that is judging a film that hasn't even had any ANIMATION released (just one still shot). Thus, many have already condemned the big budget film comng out. So the fans are already comdemning the actions of the company before they release the film, so is it any wonder that the company doesn't push the film? Then the film comes out - "Oh no, it flopped! Trust Eisner...." cry the fans.

All the DTVS do is provide a financial supplement to the other bigger budget projects Disney has running, and keeps 2D animators employed when so many others are being laid off.

Ooh - that's EVIL isn't it???!!!

Excellently put my dear friend. Should anybody here want to start an animation business go on and do it just for the passion and art of it. Yeah, right!!

Eeyore · Post by **Eeyore** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 3:02 am

Loomis wrote:But that is the defining purpose of a business - to make money for the shareholders as its primary concern. So then all corporations, by definition, are "evil" (which is pretty much what I think anyways).

"Primary concern" not equal to "only concern".

Primary concern means a business makes sound financial decisions, but is not the only factor that is ever considered. So a business can have a fine employee benefit plan. Or can choose good environmental practices. Or can choose not to do certain things, so as not to besmirch the reputation of the company, and previous products (aka, Disney cheapquels)

When it's the only concern, then every decision comes down to the almighty buck. Scrap every employee benefit legally possible. Cut every job possible. Outsource every job possible to those willing to work for 30 cents an hour. Break environmental laws, because the penalties and fines are cheaper than actually following the laws.

As for Rapunzel, put me down on the "looks hideous" side. But yes, it's early.

Though, I secretly hope it's a dismal failure, so Disney quickly learns that it's the story, and not the art technique that makes a film successful.

Uncle Remus · Post by **Uncle Remus** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 6:50 am

i have an idea for what Disney can do with their CGI animation. one thing they can do is stop all of their projects since all of them seem to be very stupid. another thing Disney can do (and some of you might hate for this)
is by using some of their original traditional animated movies, they can remake them showing the whole movie in CGI animation. after seeing what Disney can do with their movies in Kingdom Hearts, i thinkit would be cool to see what our favorite movies would look like in CGI animation.
another idea for other studios is to take some of their greatest movies and make every image from that movie into a CGI image.

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Sun Jun 27, 2004 4:40 am

People who complain about Disney (as a company) today need to stop comparing it with Disney in the 50s, 60s or 70's.

Like it or not Business has moved on. Disney has to move on too, or it becomes a target for a take over (remember ComCast? It can even still happen now). It's just a reflection on the dog-eat-dog world of business today. Everything has changed, from Globalisation to the expectations of shareholders.

GM in the 50's used to be a good employee, with lots of employees, family values and a interest of promoting the American way of life. Working for GM was seen as an ideal job, the workers had pride in their work, and the company looked after them. It was a company compariable to Disney in almost all respects, promoting the American way of life, not only in its advertising but also to its workers. And it used to do this while keeping its shareholders happy.

And what is it now? It's a company making billions of dollars profit each year, but it still shuts down factories, opens new ones up in Mexico for cheap labour and continues to reduce the workforce while it introduces more and more automation. Does it need to do this? Not really, it's making billions upon billions of dollars profit each year. According to a quick Google, GM made $3,822m profit. Surely some of that money could be used to employ a US workforce? Look at their earnings per share? Does it really have to be that high?

http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/p/g/gm.html

Ahhh. You say. But GM has more competition these days - it has to compete with the Japanese and German car makers. Yeah, so Disney has more competition these days too - more TV, more music, more Computer Games etc. The world never stands still, and in fact GM's changed business practices seem to be working dandy for them. Who needs responsibility when you can be making more money? After all, the shareholders always want more and more, for doing nothing.

The other aspect of business these days is the "short termism" syndrome. It's something that affects Disney, but it also affects all major companies. Basically, people don't care to look ahead 3 or more years. In general a C.E.O. doesn't look far into the future, as he may not be running the company then (on average a C.E.O. stays with a company for 5.7 years). Shareholders don't care to look any further into the future, as they just want to buy shares cheap and sell them for a profit later (normally within 2-3 years of buying). So why should anyone care about what will happen to the company in 10 years time, if they can make a quick buck in 2 years time?

This "short termism" explains acts such as closing the Secret Lab CGI unit at Disney (it made the figures look good for that annual report) and I suppose it also explains the traditional animation shut-down. But it's not just Disney - it's all business.

Look at the slew of reality programmes on TV these days. It may be fine in the short term, so shareholders and executives are happy - they're making their money now. But what of the future. Networks won't have a library of programmes to fall back on. What's going to run in syndication in a few years time? What are they going to sell on home video in a few years time? They're thowing away future revenue for the increased revenue they get today.

The same can be said for the energy firms today. Most are unwillling to invest in the maintenance needed, because it will show on their annual reports. So they get away with doing the minimum to keep things running. Yet they all know at some point they will have to do the maintenance, and when they do, it will be worse and cost more than it would if they did it today with regular maintenance and check-up work. But again, they are throwing away future revenue for the increased revenue they get today. Who cares about how much it will cost in 10 years time? It will be someone else's problem then!

I'm not a fan of big business, but not all big business is "evil". Take Disney for example. They may (in some people's opinion) be churning out 90% rubbish, but they're still going, and they're still making lots of films which do still contain the Disney "magic".

Disney had to move on with the rest of the world. The old Disney was failing. It was only Eisner's appointment that stopped a buy-out in the 80's - proof that the old Disney way just wasn't working any more.

Paka · Post by **Paka** » Sun Jun 27, 2004 3:11 pm

Amen, James.

You drew a perfect picture of the way modern corporations - including the ever-so-"infallible" Disney - function; it's all about the Bottom Line and the Top Dollar (or Pound, in your case...

). It's quite a gruesome spectacle. One wonders when the runaway train will finally crash - will it be as bad as a 1929 déjà vu? Or even worse? O_o

Again, I must put in a shameless plug for the documentary coming out this summer called The Corporation. I know I mentioned it before in this thread, but I'm intensely interested in this film - hopefully it will open the eyes of people who go to see it. Hehe... maybe I should stick the logo on as my avatar a la yoda_four. ~_^

Christian · Post by **Christian** » Sun Jun 27, 2004 11:43 pm

Fantasia 2006 was destroyed as far as I knew. Isn't that why Destino and Lorenzo and that Lion King 2 short were all released separately?

I believe that is correct.

No, it ain't evil to make money, but when it becomes your one and only, absolute driving force, without a care for anything else - that's when it becomes evil.

Agreed.

I went to the same site, I think it was called animated-movies.com by a guy named Olivier Mouroux or something like that. He had a lot of good valid information including histories of the movies, voice cast lists, and behind the scenes info, but sadly for some reason he couldn't keep the site up and it has ended.

Olivier had to quit working on animated-movies.com because he got a job at DreamWorks. I helped (with his permission and with several other helpers) to create http://www.Animated-News.com as a replacement but for legal reasons we could not have the pages for individual movies.

Kram Nebuer · Post by **Kram Nebuer** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 11:46 am

Christian wrote:Olivier had to quit working on animated-movies.com because he got a job at DreamWorks. I helped (with his permission and with several other helpers) to create http://www.Animated-News.com as a replacement but for legal reasons we could not have the pages for individual movies.

Wow!

That's great news! Tell him I said Congratulations!

Then again, I don't know if he remembers me since I only e-mailed him like twice. I'm glad you and your helpers were able to create the new site as the newsletter continues with the wonderful updates about Animation! Thank you!

Prince Adam · Post by **Prince Adam** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 12:54 pm

Variety.com recently reported that negotiations are apparantly in the works to get Reese Witherspoon and Kristen Chenoweth to do voice work in the film.

So who would make the better princess? If Rapunzel is to sing (which I doubt) then Chenoweth. But comedy wise? I'd say either one (their signature characters, Elle Woods and Galinda, are almost identical in personality).

PrinceAli · Post by **PrinceAli** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 12:23 am

Loomis wrote:
reyquila wrote:I don't care much for all this hysteria regarding sequels. You guys are sounding like its heretic from Disney to try to make money, when that's the obviuos purpose of any company.

It's simple. You don't like it, don's buy it. But enough of this hipocresy.
Thank you, kind sir/madam.

I've been saying that for years here, but I'm afraid it falls on deaf ears.

Most think that somehow a sequel will ruin the original, but that is impossible. Especially if the original is as good as the fans claim it to be.

As reyquila has so aptly put it, Disney is out to make money. And that means sequels. Luckily, most of them HAVE been DTVs - so you can choose to not look at them at all.

I don't think Disney are doing enough theatrical sequels. Let's start building some franchises here!

No, a sequel doesn't really ruin the original, unless of course you just try to watch them back to back and then somehow think you can make sense of it. But bringing movies like the sequels (that deserve the DTV treatment instead) to the theater is absolutely rediculous and a waste. I think more people are annoyed that Disney is focusing more attention on sequels than they are on developing original ideas. That's what bugs me and others. They should just have some sort of committee that works on the sequels and then have more of a focus on a movie that would fit in the theaters.

I think what disney needs is more of a combination of well-made movies that have actually have a soul (not literally) or meaning to them, and of course a profit. The company will die if it becomes too leaned in one direction, right now Eisner is leaning the company far too much to the business and numbers side by the years. There are parks that need repainting, new rides, etc...movies that need more life to them as they used to be...and now he decides to give himself and the board a raise??! Come on. This would be amusing if I wasn't so ticked off. I know CGI has been almost guaranteed to be a success financially lately, but must we abandon ourselves with the art that founded the heart of the Disney company? That's where it's headed right now I am afraid. Sure, DTV sequels are an easy profit (granted that people don't get bored of them in the next 25 years), but shouldn't they focus more on actual feature animation? I'll tell you what happens when we don't actually spend time on a movie before it is made....Home on the Range, Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, Atlantis, etc...that is what happens when me make more cuts in the animation department. As more and more talented artists are laid off and buildings shut down, the lesser the quality and profit. Oh, and narrowly thinking that 2-D is dead doesn't help much either. But make no mistake, I think Eisner is a fairly brilliant business man (or definately was), but lets keep it at that. He is getting more control than he deserves.

I'm sorry Loomis, but a company like Disney can't purely base it's agenda on money-making. I also think that the company is getting too big to control all of it's outlets, but that is another thing.

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

First look at Rapunzel Unbraided and other future films.....