CGI sequels to the Disney classics is not that bad.

[Teede]

Yeah disgust me.

[Pasta67]

They're gonna make a sequels to the animated classics in 3D? Wow!

Uh? Hello? Can anybody hear me? I said they're gonna make the sequels to Disney classics in 3D? Wow!

Well at least they can make 3D sequels to the Disney classics. If you know what I mean.

Well it's just that they're making CGI sequels to Disney classics like a CGI sequel to The Great Mouse Detective and stuff and all.

You bet I am right about 3D sequels to Disney classics!

Sequels sequels sequels sequels sequels sequels sequels sequels sequels sequels sequels sequels sequels sequels sequels sequels sequels!

I'm noticing a pattern here.

Teede, aren't you even going to respond to everyone else's comments? Some people are pretty mad about what you said earlier, and you're not even going to respond? You're really not even adding to the conversation anymore, you're just saying the same annoying sentence over and over again, so why do you keep posting?

[Teede]

Okay sorry Pasta.

[Siren]

No Pasta, she's not even going to respond to the comments she made earlier about those English-challenged Asians (all said sarcastically of course)

[Luke]

Please, that statement was more retarded than it was racist.

Just a reminder that personal attacks against forum members aren't welcome. While you seem to be referring to the statement rather than the poster, and while certain comments in this very thread may seem frustratingly inane, it's important to keep discussion civil and your point would be better taken if you weren't simply throwing around an insult.



What is also frowned upon, and this applies most readily to Teede (and in the other thread), is posting a reply to your own post to say something like "Can anybody here me? Hello?" Obviously, if anyone has something of worth to reply with, they will do so and there is no rule that states all posts must be replied to, especially when you're letting only an hour pass before following up. One-line throwaway statements that don't really say anything are also discouraged. Instead of being deliberately vague only to have to answer the questions and put-downs that undoubtedly will come in reply, why not make your point clear from the start? It just may so happen that you'll have to explain your position (why you feel a certain way, whether others have reason to feel the same way) and that could well take more than one or two sentences.


If all could keep general posting courtesies like these in mind, then the discussions of this forum would be much more welcoming and rewarding. Thanks for remembering these guidelines and if you haven't already done so, I'd encourage all to read the Posting Guidelines atop General Discussion.

[Siren]

Thank you very much, Luke.

[Pasta67]

Yeah, thanks Luke.

Siren, Teede, I'm sorry if I made you guys angry also.

In the spirit of getting back on topic....

Is just me or Disney is aheading to a dark age(pretty dark indeed)

I don't think Disney is going into a dark age for this just yet, but it does look like Disney is starting to show a little disrespect for their animated classics. They are moving their sequels department to a place where they said they would be able to use less budget (or something like that). Does that not seem the least bit disrespectful to you guys? It sounds like they're saying "We're trying to increase productivity by putting less effort into these sequels than before."

[Siren]

Pasta, no, I was never angry with you, or Teede. No need for apologies.

[Isidour]

I hope that Disney get on its senses soon or they will fall as a greater movies-4-kids house

Or they understand than the thing that make them what they are now,should never been forgoten or they will forgot who their are

[orestes.]

Reading Isidour and Pasta's last posts got me thinking (depressing thoughts). I worry what will happen if the quality of their movies sink too low?

Some people will not care about the lack of quality but as time goes on I would think more and more people would be wary of spending money on buing movies for their kids that are subpar. Many of us here who don't have kids will one day have kids and if we are against crappy product we will buy and support the classics but nothing new and that wouldn't be a good thing for Disney.

I just hope things don't get as bleak as it was in the 70's for Disney.

[Pasta67]

I just hope things don't get as bleak as it was in the 70's for Disney.

If you want my opinion (and why not, this is a message board), I think we're worse off now than we were in the 70's. Think, back then the only problem was that the animated classics weren't doing financially well, as far as I know. Now, we have a whole bunch of problems.

- The latest animated classics are not doing financially well.
- All the hand-drawn animation studios have been shut down.
- People are slowly losing respect for Disney (for a lot of reasons).
- The Disney company is being run straight into the ground.
- They have absolutely no idea what they're doing wrong or even that they're doing anything wrong.
- The already cheap sequels are going to become even cheaper.

Face it, we're in a rut.

[Teede]

I'll bet those guys are just making that up about making sequels in Asia.

[Pasta67]

I'll bet those guys are just making that up about making sequels in Asia.

As much as I'd like to believe you, they wouldn't just lie to the press about something like that. It's pretty much confirmed.

[orestes.]

What you said Pasta about in a bigger rut now I was going to say. I was going to point out the same things until I thought about a few things...

-some of their live action movies are doing well and back then they only had family live action movies and no Touchstone (or Hollywood Pictures)

-they had no television animated series until the 80's (currently they don't have too many appealing series but if I was younger I may see it differently)

-they have the Disney Channel now with some popular shows (many of us may dislike them but I know so many people who love them)

-Pixar's movies now are doing well and they didn't have that in the 70's

These are just a few things they didn't really have to offer int he 70's. During that time they had some great animated movies, some great live action movies and even a Mickey Mouse Club tv series but they didn't have a lot going on since Walt died and it didn't pick up again until Eisner came on board.

Eisner did well until he got out of touch but I can't solely blame him. Kids these days have different tastes and well traditional animation is still popular but today's kids like things looking like a video game it seems.

So it's pretty bleak now and I truly don't know how the 70's were but by the sounds of it their low amount actitivty seems pretty bleak to me and right now it's kinda bleak but they are still producing some gems amidst the crap and I hope not all will be lost even though much of what I desire (traditional animation) is going the way of the dodo.

[orestes.]

Just something to add...

Do we know if the tradtional look of animation is pretty much dead? One thing many seem to forget is that computer generated digital animation can look like traditional animation. For example I believe last season The Simpsons went digital.

I admit I am a huge fan of animation but my knowledge of forms of animation is limited. I know a lot about CGI and traditional animation and Flash animation but when it comes to shades of grey in between I have little clue of what's going on.

[Little Red Henski]

but today's kids like things looking like a video game it seems.

You sound like Miyazkaki.

Just something to add...

Do we know if the tradtional look of animation is pretty much dead? One thing many seem to forget is that computer generated digital animation can look like traditional animation. For example I believe last season The Simpsons went digital.

My Neighbors the Yamadas is also 2D CGI film.

[orestes.]

Really Miyazaki said something like that? I've been thinking like that for a while and I've heard a couple of others who have also said something similar. I had a friend who went on a huge rant about the differences between kids today, in the 80's and then in previous decades and they brought up the point a lot that they fear that animation is becoming too relaistic and like a video game and they welcome more stylized animation. They were worried about Dreamworks since they really seemed like they were going for realism at one point but 'Madagascar' looks more stylized and not as realistic.

Oh I heard about My Neighbours the Yamadas being digital but I have ot really looked into that movie. I'll buy it when it comes out but like 'The Cat Returns' my interest is high but nothing major like Totoro.

[Little Red Henski]

Hayao Miyazaki's film, Howl's Moving Castle, based on a story by Diane Wynne Jones, a British author, uses traditional hand-drawn cel animation for its art, rather than the number-crunching powers of big-studio technology.

Miyazaki believes that Hollywood's agenda with respect to animation is being dictated by computer games. His thoughts are echoed by a former Disney executive, Stephen Alpert, now senior vice-president of Miyazaki's Studio Ghibli, in Tokyo.

"Among the prime audiences for animated films are teenage boys, who like computer games," he said.

Miyazaki's two-hour feature films involve thousands of hand-drawn frames -24 per second. This is a skill that has been lost by the big studios, according to Mr Alpert, which prefer to put money into such computer-generated crowd-pullers as Shrek.

"Disney, which used to be the premier studio for 2-D hand-drawn animation has shut that part down, dismissing all the animators," Mr Alpert said. "It's astonishing, as they're the founders of hand-drawn animation, but now they don't do it themselves."

Miyazaki says his films must be 90% done by hand.

[Wonderlicious]

If you want my opinion (and why not, this is a message board), I think we're worse off now than we were in the 70's. Think, back then the only problem was that the animated classics weren't doing financially well, as far as I know. Now, we have a whole bunch of problems.

Actually, it wasn't that their animated films were doing crap at the box office; from what I read, Robin Hood and eventually The Rescuers were the most successful animated films at some point, and The Aristocats did well too. I believe the problems were that formulas were being reused, reviews said that the films lacked Walt's magic and that Disney weren't moving with the times. They actually turned down making Star Wars as they found it a stupid concept, just as Pete's Dragon went into production.

I'll bet those guys are just making that up about making sequels in Asia.

Why isn't any one responding to that post?

[Teede]

Come on you guys. Things have changed.