My Beef With The "Only CGI" Ruling...

[numba1lostboy]

Okay, don't get me wrong, I love Disney as much as everyone on this forum. But their ruling on only producing CGI films has really gotten under my skin, and I'll tell you why:

While the CGI films Disney (or any other studio) has released have done well in theaters, the all have one common denominator: good stories overpowered by humor. Movies can have humor in them, but I would like to see films more along the lines of the animated films of the 90's.

Every time a new CGi film comes out, it always seems to be a comedic adventure. It really makes me angry. I have now come to associate CGI films with this genre. I really want deeper films!!!!!!!!!!

Does anyone else feel this way?

[Escapay]

What are you talking about? Last time I checked, Star Wars III was like...95% CGI! And it's not a comedy (unless you MST3K it, which is fun).

But I agree, as of late it seems that the only CGI films out there are simply comedies.

Escapay

[numba1lostboy]

What are you talking about? Last time I checked, Star Wars III was like...95% CGI! And it's not a comedy (unless you MST3K it, which is fun).

Well...I wasn't talking about those CGI films .

[totallyminnie86]

I completley agree! Nowadays almost all animated CGI movies are comedy focused. I miss the old days when Disney actual had movies with depth that could be taken on many levels. They had a balance of all elements making them so much superior to this purely comic junk thats out now

[Lord Yupa]

I'd like to see more traditionally animated films being made with the great storytelling, characterization, fluidity of motion and background detail of a Disney film from the '30s-'50s.
I won't say anything more .

[singerguy04]

I completely agree, although perhaps Rapunzel will be the first from what i understand. I heard it's going to be a traditional disney fairy tale and we all know it's going to be CGI. I also understand that it's going to ahve a really good musical score, so could it perhaps be the first real CGI musical? i hope so!!!!

I think the general public is getting tired of the regualr comedic CGI movies. Films like the Pixar movies and Shrek are comedy based, but i've always felt that they did have heart behind them. Films like Madagascar, Ice Age, and Chicken Little didn't really capture that well. I think this will eventually lead to something more like 2D based on the fact that there are things you can do with a pencil and paper that you just can't do with a computer.

[Aladdin from Agrabah]

You know, Toy Story or the Bug's life were not competely comedies. Actually there were not comedies, they just had some comical gags just like the traditional Disney movies. The CGI films became comedies when Shrek, Nemo and the Incredibles were released. These were comedies 100%. But , comedies or not, CGI films are not at all appealing to me, I think they insult my intelligence and they also insult me aesthetically.
As for Rapunzel, I don't think it's going to be anything like Disney's traditional fairy tale movies. Remember the storyline? Two teenagers of today who travell in the world of Fairy Tales , when a witch casts her spell. Oh, yes it DOES sound like a silly comedy to me.
ATTENTION! Rapunzel is not going to be completely CGI! It will be a blend of CGI AND 2D, not seperate, but together, the one IN the other. Or that's what Glen Keane claimed in one of his interviews. So it's gonna be actually a NEW kind. What I have in mind actually is traditional scetches dressed with new technology.

[Disney Duster]

ATTENTION! Rapunzel is not going to be completely CGI! It will be a blend of CGI AND 2D, not seperate, but together, the one IN the other. Or that's what Glen Keane claimed in one of his interviews. So it's gonna be actually a NEW kind.

No, that will not be a NEW kind. Many films before hand, like the fairly recent Treasure Planet, blended hand-drawn animation with CGI animation. In fact, CGI and hand-drawn animation have been together since computers were used to help with the clock tower scene in The Great Mouse Detective. And if what you said is true, that Rapunzel will be a combination of 2-D and CGI animation, THAT IS FANTASTIC, GREAT NEWS! That means this Disney feature film will have hand-drawn animation! That's what me and pretty much everybody on UD wanted!

[BATBfan1]

Okay, don't get me wrong, I love Disney as much as everyone on this forum. But their ruling on only producing CGI films has really gotten under my skin, and I'll tell you why:

While the CGI films Disney (or any other studio) has released have done well in theaters, the all have one common denominator: good stories overpowered by humor. Movies can have humor in them, but I would like to see films more along the lines of the animated films of the 90's.

Every time a new CGi film comes out, it always seems to be a comedic adventure. It really makes me angry. I have now come to associate CGI films with this genre. I really want deeper films!!!!!!!!!!

Does anyone else feel this way?

I agree!

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

The CGI films became comedies when Shrek, Nemo and the Incredibles were released. These were comedies 100%.

The Incredibles was 100% comedy? I mean, Shrek and Finding Nemo are, I'll give you those, but The Incredibles certainly had different genres.

Anyway, personally, I'm glad Disney has decided to change to CG films. Whether we like it or not, 3D films are in, 2D films aren't. Chicken Little was a really good movie, imho, however, it was basically Disney trying to go into a new format. It wasn't like they were saying this would be as good as say "The Lion King" as some people believe. Just give Disney ability of CG some time.

As for CG films always being comedies, well I honestly agree, however "The Polar Express" is a great movie that's not comedy. Also, Disney's next film "Meet the Robinsons" I'm pretty sure isn't going to be completely comedy.

[deadmanjeff]

actually i think the pixar movies are more drama than comedy because they're not funny the whole way through although toy story 2,monsters inc and finding nemo are all pretty funny
i don't care if disney makes cg films as long as they continue to do 2d ones i mean disney used to make like 3 movies at the same time so why cant they make 2d and 3d

[Aladdin from Agrabah]

No, that will not be a NEW kind. Many films before hand, like the fairly recent Treasure Planet, blended hand-drawn animation with CGI animation. In fact, CGI and hand-drawn animation have been together since computers were used to help with the clock tower scene in The Great Mouse Detective. And if what you said is true, that Rapunzel will be a combination of 2-D and CGI animation, THAT IS FANTASTIC, GREAT NEWS! That means this Disney feature film will have hand-drawn animation! That's what me and pretty much everybody on UD wanted!

No, this is a misunderstanding. I clearly said that we will not able to see hand-drawn animation ALONE! When I say a new kind I mean that Rapunzel's face for example is going to be traditionally animated AND computer animated AT THE SAME TIME, one scetch IN the other!! What you say about Treasure Planet means that Jim Hawkins is 2D animated but his ship is 3d animated. I'm speaking about blended animation in the very SAME thing. And, while I don't know how its movement is going to look like, judging from the photograph posted here some months ago, I realize that , at least aesthetically,it looks like 3d. So, that's why it's going to be a new kind.

[2099net]

It sounds like a sort of evolution of Deep Canvas to me. I can't say the preview pics from Rapunzel excite me much (unlike most other people). Her whole face and head just looked wrong (and slightly spooky) to me.

And I think that's the problem with CGI. It's like these new next-gen consoles. The closer you get to reality, the odder it looks if it's not quite right.

Rapunzel's design may not be "reality", but the shading and lighting and "solidness" of it is. And it just looks wrong (to me).

However, I've only seen static pictures, so it could all be amazing when on the screen.

[Aladdin from Agrabah]

The Incredibles was 100% comedy? I mean, Shrek and Finding Nemo are, I'll give you those, but The Incredibles certainly had different genres.

Anyway, personally, I'm glad Disney has decided to change to CG films. Whether we like it or not, 3D films are in, 2D films aren't. Chicken Little was a really good movie, imho, however, it was basically Disney trying to go into a new format. It wasn't like they were saying this would be as good as say "The Lion King" as some people believe. Just give Disney ability of CG some time.

The incredibles is comedy because not even its heroes can be considered as serious heroes, they're parodies of Fantastic Four. The whole movie, except the scenes of family tenderness, is a BIG parody. What is more, it didn't even make me laugh. So yes, it a silly comedy 100%. As for Disney having to change and going into a new format, it's like saying we HAVE TO GET USED IN SILLY COMPUTERIZED PUPPET- LIKE HEROES INSTEAD OF ORIGINAL ARTISTIC MASTERPIECES!!!!!! T H I S I S MADNESS!!!!
As for Chicken Little being a good movie, what can I say? It's your opinion....No comment!!!

[2099net]

The incredibles is comedy because not even its heroes can be considered as serious heroes, they're parodies of Fantastic Four. The whole movie, except the scenes of family tenderness, is a BIG parody. What is more, it didn't even make me laugh.

I'd be more likely to class The Incredibles as pastiche (as imitation) than parody. After all, the story had some surprisingly serious themes and events in it.

But yes, The Incredibles is clearly based on the Fantastic Four (plus a leberal dose of other genre-standards, perhaps both definitions of pastiche would work) but you know, A Bug's Life was based on The Seven Samurai/The Magnificent Seven. Was that a parody?

[singerguy04]

As for Rapunzel, I don't think it's going to be anything like Disney's traditional fairy tale movies. Remember the storyline? Two teenagers of today who travell in the world of Fairy Tales , when a witch casts her spell. Oh, yes it DOES sound like a silly comedy to me.

Isn't that the plotline for Enchanted? I remember reading that was the plotline a LONG time ago for Rapunzel also, but since then i've heard it's gone through like multiple script changes and even more alterations. so i wouldn't be so confident in saying that this will be the FINAL story line. Considering all the different paths they took with all the other scripts, (Reese witherspoon being the voice of Rapunzel and helping produce the film until she got kicked off, that being enough said. Then there was the rapunzel is a squirrel and the prince will be a hound dog version) I think that trying to go back to the classic princess movie format would be a logical choice for them, and i've heard my theory being supported on an article on here somewhere. All in all we're probably not going to know for sure until after Meet the Robinson's comes out.

[2099net]

As for Rapunzel, I don't think it's going to be anything like Disney's traditional fairy tale movies. Remember the storyline? Two teenagers of today who travell in the world of Fairy Tales , when a witch casts her spell. Oh, yes it DOES sound like a silly comedy to me.

But all Disney fairytale movies of the past few years have had modern characters in them.

What was the Genie in Aladdin? Or Mushu? Or most of the people and environments in Hercules? Even Sabastian in The Little Mermaid seems a little out of his time. All made contemporary references which they shouldn't have been aware of, given the logic of the settings.

It doesn't really matter. And just because some teenagers end-up in a fairytale world doesn't mean its going to be another Shrek.

[Aladdin from Agrabah]

A Bug's Life was based on The Seven Samurai/The Magnificent Seven. Was that a parody?

YESSIRE!!!!

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

The incredibles is comedy because not even its heroes can be considered as serious heroes, they're parodies of Fantastic Four. The whole movie, except the scenes of family tenderness, is a BIG parody. What is more, it didn't even make me laugh. So yes, it a silly comedy 100%. As for Disney having to change and going into a new format, it's like saying we HAVE TO GET USED IN SILLY COMPUTERIZED PUPPET- LIKE HEROES INSTEAD OF ORIGINAL ARTISTIC MASTERPIECES!!!!!! T H I S I S MADNESS!!!!

Well, no, it's not really a parody of Fantastic Four. In fact, if you think about it, it's a "parody" of a lot of things.

I think "The Incredibles" is really an action-adventure film with comedy in it. I certainly don't know if you can say with a straight face that it was a comedy "100%". I felt it more action and adventure than actual comedy, in fact that's why I've heard some little kids getting bored with it. Kids need more fart jokes in their films not to get boring.

Also, so you admit A Bug's Life is a "parody" of "The Seven Samurai"? Didn't you say it had "dramatic elements"?

However, my only problem with the movie is similar to what you said. It's nothing original. It's like a combination of "X-Men", "Fantastic Four" "True Lies" "Spy Kids" "Return of the Jedi" a couple of the James Bond films and more!

[Karushifa]

Anyway, personally, I'm glad Disney has decided to change to CG films. Whether we like it or not, 3D films are in, 2D films aren't. Chicken Little was a really good movie, imho, however, it was basically Disney trying to go into a new format. It wasn't like they were saying this would be as good as say "The Lion King" as some people believe. Just give Disney ability of CG some time.

Just because CGI seems to be "in" doesn't mean that all studios have to dedicate whole-hog to it in order to assure survival. Five or so years ago, any old studio it seemed could release a CGI film and guarantee huge box office profit, the main reason being not that the actual stories in the movies were so great, but because CGI features were a new, flashy thing that people latched onto for eye candy value. Nowadays, CGI films aren't at all bulletproof: look at films like Valiant and Doogal, which although they are CGI, are not good enough to stand up on CGI merit alone.

I think that the hyperenchantment that people had with CGI animation in its infancy has waned by now. People are apparently making more discriminating choices about what CGI movies are actually worth the ticket price, and aren't flocking to each and every one as much as they once did. If anything, this is a GREAT time for animation of other formats to try and gain a foothold once more; keep in mind that NONE of the Best Animated Feature contenders from the latest Oscars were CGI. Animation should be about lovingly crafting a great movie that people will enjoy, not about latching onto one medium in hopes that it will return the biggest profits down the road.