Pixar to Start a New 2D Animation Division
-
ArtOfDisney
- Banned Deadbeat
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 12:25 pm
- Location: Wisconsin
If you're talking about style of story fitting animation styles, surely the comic book based Incredibles would of been better in 2D?
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
ArtOfDisney
- Banned Deadbeat
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 12:25 pm
- Location: Wisconsin
Well, I have to say I didn't think about that. I really like the look of the Incredibles in the teaser. I don't know that I would say that it would be better in 2D. I guess I'd have to see what the rest of the movie is like.2099net wrote:If you're talking about style of story fitting animation styles, surely the comic book based Incredibles would of been better in 2D?
It makes me think of the Tick. One of my favorite cartoons that they tried to make a live action show out of that, in my opinion, just ruined it. Now I would say that if they wanted to take the tick and make it into something more than 2D, that 3D style, such as the Incredibles, would have been much more effective because it has the hint of realism, but it doesn't have the real world restraints. But I actually thought that the best manifestation of the Tick was in 2D.
I guess it's still up for debate. I actually thought that Ice Age would have been just fine, maybe even better, in 2D.
I wonder if there is a money issue in the debate as well. Is it cheaper to do 3D? It seems to me like it would be. I mean, isn't that why disney first introduced it in Great Mouse Detective in the Clock? because animating them by hand would have been too hard and costly?
Ice Age would have been vastly superior in 2D IMOHO as the character designs were awful. That's reportedly when Disney turned down the film when offered it - and I side with Disney.
As for the cost. In theory 3D is cheaper. There's a number of reasons for this but the prime reason is once the models and props have been created, it's vastly cheaper to animate them. A single person can animate the characters (where 2D animation would require Animators, in-betweeners, inkers, painters and photographers) and once a virtual background 'set' has been created it can be re-used from any angle without having to be repainted.
However, it does take vast amounts of people to build the virtual models and props in the first place. Plus as the technology is still new, vast amounts of money are being used on research and development as part of the pre-production on most major CGI movies.
So at the moment, it probably costs about the same to make a 3D movie as to make a Walt Disney Feature Animation 2D movie. Lilo and Stitch cost about $80m and Finding Nemo cost about $90m. But the cost of 3D movies is coming down. Motion capture and physical calculations are helping with the animation making it even quicker (and time equals money) and should any additional animation need doing - special adverts, promos for theme parks or a sequel the cost is a fraction of creating 2D animation from scratch as the virtual models and sets already exist.
As a side-note 2D is still the favoured method for television animation, because most television cartoons introduce new characters, objects and locations in each episode, and the creation of these new elements consume both time and money.
As for the cost. In theory 3D is cheaper. There's a number of reasons for this but the prime reason is once the models and props have been created, it's vastly cheaper to animate them. A single person can animate the characters (where 2D animation would require Animators, in-betweeners, inkers, painters and photographers) and once a virtual background 'set' has been created it can be re-used from any angle without having to be repainted.
However, it does take vast amounts of people to build the virtual models and props in the first place. Plus as the technology is still new, vast amounts of money are being used on research and development as part of the pre-production on most major CGI movies.
So at the moment, it probably costs about the same to make a 3D movie as to make a Walt Disney Feature Animation 2D movie. Lilo and Stitch cost about $80m and Finding Nemo cost about $90m. But the cost of 3D movies is coming down. Motion capture and physical calculations are helping with the animation making it even quicker (and time equals money) and should any additional animation need doing - special adverts, promos for theme parks or a sequel the cost is a fraction of creating 2D animation from scratch as the virtual models and sets already exist.
As a side-note 2D is still the favoured method for television animation, because most television cartoons introduce new characters, objects and locations in each episode, and the creation of these new elements consume both time and money.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
You're about right regarding the cost of 3D vs. 2D feature films. They're about the same to make.
Although--regarding the tech costs coming down soon, keep in mind that Pixar and various other 3D companies want to do something different, something that's never been done before to wow audiences for each new feature. So this requires new technologies which require many hours of programming and reprogramming and rewriting codes to catch up with that particular look or style. Case in point: the "Murk" program for the water effects in Finding Nemo. Hundreds of hours were put into that program to get the effects right. And that mutha paid off, that's for sure.
The artists and animators at Pixar have a vast historical devotion to Disney and to traditional animation as a whole. If this rumor regarding Brad Bird proves to be true, then it would make complete sense to do traditional animation at Pixar. Those quys grew up living and breathing that stuff all their lives, so, to make a 2D movie would not be anything odd or different for them. And I wouldn't see this as any threatening move on Pixar's part. To me, as an animator, I would see that move as a major corporation who gets it. A company that understands the art-form from all angles and does not focus only on one minute aspect. I would hope that Disney could learn from this and not turn it's back on the cornerstone of that entire corporation.
Don't expect motion capture to be a major player within the 3D animation world. True, The Ring Trilogy and various other movies utilized this technology, but mo-cap is more of a tool for special effects houses that need ambient movement for background characters, etc. It definitely helps the animators with getting particular movements down that they probably would not have realized, but the human element of actually ANIMATING is required. Mo-cap has the ability to make human movements look static and odd--it's proven to be a big thing for the video game market. And that's where it will flourish.
Mo-cap for 3D is very much like rotoscoping for 2D. It's a great tool for reference for movement, but if you rely too much on it, it will look robotic. It can become a crutch, and there really is no "animation" going on there. Watch some of the human characters for Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty (Prince and Briar Rose). Every once in awhile the motion looked strange and harbored. They roto-ed every scene with actors and then tweaked the animation to make it fit right--every once in a while they relied too much on the live action footage, and it shows. With animation, you need to give a little more to the action in order for it to read better.
Anyway, enough of that. I really liked the designs for Ice Age. I felt that they were trying to not do the typical "3D" modeling and I applaud Fox and Blue Sky for that. They had Peter D'Seve's artwork for inspiration and it was a worthy effort if you ask me. It was more of a story-book look. Very nice designs.
That's enough from me.
peace,
c.
Although--regarding the tech costs coming down soon, keep in mind that Pixar and various other 3D companies want to do something different, something that's never been done before to wow audiences for each new feature. So this requires new technologies which require many hours of programming and reprogramming and rewriting codes to catch up with that particular look or style. Case in point: the "Murk" program for the water effects in Finding Nemo. Hundreds of hours were put into that program to get the effects right. And that mutha paid off, that's for sure.
The artists and animators at Pixar have a vast historical devotion to Disney and to traditional animation as a whole. If this rumor regarding Brad Bird proves to be true, then it would make complete sense to do traditional animation at Pixar. Those quys grew up living and breathing that stuff all their lives, so, to make a 2D movie would not be anything odd or different for them. And I wouldn't see this as any threatening move on Pixar's part. To me, as an animator, I would see that move as a major corporation who gets it. A company that understands the art-form from all angles and does not focus only on one minute aspect. I would hope that Disney could learn from this and not turn it's back on the cornerstone of that entire corporation.
Don't expect motion capture to be a major player within the 3D animation world. True, The Ring Trilogy and various other movies utilized this technology, but mo-cap is more of a tool for special effects houses that need ambient movement for background characters, etc. It definitely helps the animators with getting particular movements down that they probably would not have realized, but the human element of actually ANIMATING is required. Mo-cap has the ability to make human movements look static and odd--it's proven to be a big thing for the video game market. And that's where it will flourish.
Mo-cap for 3D is very much like rotoscoping for 2D. It's a great tool for reference for movement, but if you rely too much on it, it will look robotic. It can become a crutch, and there really is no "animation" going on there. Watch some of the human characters for Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty (Prince and Briar Rose). Every once in awhile the motion looked strange and harbored. They roto-ed every scene with actors and then tweaked the animation to make it fit right--every once in a while they relied too much on the live action footage, and it shows. With animation, you need to give a little more to the action in order for it to read better.
Anyway, enough of that. I really liked the designs for Ice Age. I felt that they were trying to not do the typical "3D" modeling and I applaud Fox and Blue Sky for that. They had Peter D'Seve's artwork for inspiration and it was a worthy effort if you ask me. It was more of a story-book look. Very nice designs.
That's enough from me.
peace,
c.
Maybe I should change my comment about the Ice Age character designs. They may look OK 'flat', but I don't think they worked in 3D at all.
Obviously Mo-Cap will never replace full animation - but it is a good starting point and will save time (and time equals money).
As for the cost of the technology coming down - I believe it will. If Pixar needs to do some more scenes underwater, they already have perfected the technology. They may attempt to make minor changes, but the basis is there. Once they build up a decent sized library of environmental effects, they're unlikely to need any new ones.
The biggest problem with 3D is buliding the character models. Not only do these have to look right, complete with texturing, shading and other artistic surface properties, but they must also be painstakingly created to allow movement (with each movement having a corresponding control). This requires not only large amounts of artistic skill, but also technical programming skill. I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine it takes considerably longer and considerably more people than designing a character for 2D.
The true benefits of 3D (as a cost saver) will only really be applicable if a sequel or spin-off series is launched. While I'd admit it's unlikely a weekly Nemo tv series would feature the same quality of animation (like 2D animation, 3D animation is a skill), I'm sure it would be cheaper than a traditional cartoon series, as all the models, backgrounds, props and physics applications have already been created.
I think this is Disney's main reason for wanting to do CGI animation (especially if the reports of their attempted 'handrawn' looking CGI Dumbo and Bambi sequels are true). While the recent appeal of 3D films is one consideration, I'm convinced they're mainly thinking about cheaper spin-offs should a 3D picture become successful.
I thought Disney's upcoming Rapunzel movies was to make use of Motion Capture (and Disney are reportedly investing big money in capturing facial expressions better than before) and I'm sure I read somewhere Shrek 2 uses Motion Capture for some characters.Canon wrote:Don't expect motion capture to be a major player within the 3D animation world. True, The Ring Trilogy and various other movies utilized this technology, but mo-cap is more of a tool for special effects houses that need ambient movement for background characters, etc. It definitely helps the animators with getting particular movements down that they probably would not have realized, but the human element of actually ANIMATING is required. Mo-cap has the ability to make human movements look static and odd--it's proven to be a big thing for the video game market. And that's where it will flourish.
Obviously Mo-Cap will never replace full animation - but it is a good starting point and will save time (and time equals money).
As for the cost of the technology coming down - I believe it will. If Pixar needs to do some more scenes underwater, they already have perfected the technology. They may attempt to make minor changes, but the basis is there. Once they build up a decent sized library of environmental effects, they're unlikely to need any new ones.
The biggest problem with 3D is buliding the character models. Not only do these have to look right, complete with texturing, shading and other artistic surface properties, but they must also be painstakingly created to allow movement (with each movement having a corresponding control). This requires not only large amounts of artistic skill, but also technical programming skill. I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine it takes considerably longer and considerably more people than designing a character for 2D.
The true benefits of 3D (as a cost saver) will only really be applicable if a sequel or spin-off series is launched. While I'd admit it's unlikely a weekly Nemo tv series would feature the same quality of animation (like 2D animation, 3D animation is a skill), I'm sure it would be cheaper than a traditional cartoon series, as all the models, backgrounds, props and physics applications have already been created.
I think this is Disney's main reason for wanting to do CGI animation (especially if the reports of their attempted 'handrawn' looking CGI Dumbo and Bambi sequels are true). While the recent appeal of 3D films is one consideration, I'm convinced they're mainly thinking about cheaper spin-offs should a 3D picture become successful.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
If anyone needs an example of how awkward Motion Capture can be, just watch Barbie in the Nutcracker and Barbie as Rapunzel. Two of my daughter's favorite movies, but Motion capture is used almost exclusively for body movements. While it is effective for some of the dancing, most of the movements make them look like marionette's instead of beings who are moving themselves.
I've also been distracted by Don Bluth's extensive use of rotoscoping. It is painfully obvious in Thumbelina and Anastasia where it is being used. The movements start to look, strangly enough, unnatural for animation. Too precise.
I've also been distracted by Don Bluth's extensive use of rotoscoping. It is painfully obvious in Thumbelina and Anastasia where it is being used. The movements start to look, strangly enough, unnatural for animation. Too precise.
-
Mermaid Kelly
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1291
- Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 10:50 pm
- Location: Under the sea........under the sea
-
Maerj
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2748
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 11:31 pm
- Location: Ephrata, PA
- Contact:
I think that if ya give em like 5 years, there will be another one. I can hear the announcer voice now:Mermaid Kelly wrote:I'm kinda confused about all this... does anyone think that Disney will go back to making 2d films, or will it just be 3d from now on?
Also, does anyone think this may have something to do with the crap with Roy and Eisner?
"For the first time in years, Disney presents in the traditon of Bambi, Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast, a traditional animated feature film..."
There was a quote from someone at Disney who said: "We aren't abandoning 2-D entirely. If we want to make a 2-D film in the future, we can." So, I'd say we haven't seen the last of it from the mouse house. Right now, though, they are clearly stamping it out for a while.Mermaid Kelly wrote:
Also, does anyone think this may have something to do with the crap with Roy and Eisner?
I have a question for everyone who shares this opinion as I hear it voiced often enough on these boards and I'm confused as to the reasoning behind it... If in fact, Disney was at the height of it's succession in the late 80's and early 90's and are just now "getting back to that place" as I quote Prince Philip directly, (obviously acknowledging the fact that the feature animation department must have been recovering from some sort of descent) - than at what point in time exactly, marks this apparent recession?Prince Phillip wrote:I mean at the begining of the 90's, end of the 80's Disney was churning out hit after hit, and now I think their getting back to that place, Lilo and Stitch, Treasure Planet, and Brother Bear have all been great, and Home on the Range is promising to do that...
The Lion King was released theatrically in 1994, since than followed by Pocahontas and Hunchback which both seemed to be highly prominent in terms of their appraisal or critique in "modern Disney years". I'm not being overly critical or cynical of your valid opinions, but I am just curious to know if it's after this point and all films prior to Lilo & Stitch where those of you who share this perspective, would establish Disney's decline?
I personally have my own opinions as to the direction of the more recent Disney features, however, for those of you who enjoyed such films as Treasure Planet, etc. what than would you associate with Disney's recent slump?
I would've assumed that you'd have taken the angle that Disney's most recent recession in it's feature film department was less of a creative or artistic decline, but rather strictly a financial drop. The way Prince Philip worded his statement however, it seemed as though he was finding shortcomings in Disney features somewhere down the line... I'm just wondering where and with what films specifically?
Personally, I feel that after Pocahontas, much of the inspiration from Disney's feature lengths were lost (Not accounting for Hunchback which I've been meaning to watch for some time). It's not necessarily to say that nothing good has come from feature production since 1995, but that prior to this stretch, Disney was known for it's consistency. Disney didn't produce mediocre or average films, Disney features were associated with the classics branding... animated epics. Since than, to date, I believe that the direction of their feature film department has been overall subpar and much of the inspiration has been lost.
I know that many of you would praise films like Tarzan, Mulan, etc. and than by associating such recent films as Lilo & Stitch and Treasure Planet with what many of you would consider to be Disney's rise or emergence once again in feature-length animation... I'm curious as to where the low point ever was for you?
-
Maerj
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2748
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 11:31 pm
- Location: Ephrata, PA
- Contact:
That's a very good question, Stash. I gave it some thought...what I did was, I took the list of animated classics and jotted down how I felt about them. Some are three words, others are a sentence. Very brief snippets of my feelings towards the films in order to determine what eras I felt were the weakest.
1. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Great movie, classic!
2. Pinocchio Great movie, classic!
3. Fantasia Great movie, classic!
4. Dumbo Great movie, classic!
5. Bambi Great movie, classic!
Before we go, let's take a lil break to discuss these "Package films." These are a lil more difficult to rate due to the nature of the films. Some of the segments are classic, others not as much so. So, overall these films feel a lil less classic than the rest of the films. They are still watchable/enjoyable, they're just different than the full length stories.
6. Saludos Amigos Don't know if I'd call this one a classic, but I liked it.
7. The Three Caballeros Same thing, no classic, but its okay.
8. Make Mine Music This one was an okay package film.
9. Fun and Fancy Free This one was an okay package film
10. Melody Time This one was an okay package film
11. The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad One of the best of the package films!
12. Cinderella Back to form with this one! Great movie, classic!
13. Alice in Wonderland Enjoyable film
14. Peter Pan Great movie, classic!
15. Lady and the Tramp Pretty good film
16. Sleeping Beauty Amazing visual materpiece, great movie, classic!
17. One Hundred and One Dalmatians Fun movie, funky, sketchy Xerox animation.
18. The Sword in the Stone Enjoyable film
19. Jungle Book Pretty good movie, one of the better ones from this period
20. The Aristocats Fun film
21. Robin Hood This one was okay
22. Adventures of Winnie the Pooh This one was okay as well, I'm not a big "Pooh" fan
23. The Rescuers Fun movie
24. The Fox and the Hound Pretty good film
25. The Black Cauldron One of their weaker films, cool villain and zombies. Does not feel like a Disney film.
26. The Great Mouse Detective Okay movie.
27. Oliver & Company Okay movie.
28. The Little Mermaid Great movie, classic!
29. Rescuers Down Under Good movie.
30. Beauty and the Beast Great movie, classic!
31. Aladdin Great movie, classic!
32. The Lion King Great movie, classic!
33. Pocahontas Okay movie, I never overly cared for this one though.
34. The Hunchback of Notre Dame Great movie, classic!
35. Hercules Great movie, classic!
36. Mulan Great movie, classic!
37. Tarzan Great movie, classic!
38. Fantasia 2000 Great movie, classic!
39. Dinosaur The story felt too similar to Land Before Time, but visually amazing.
40. The Emperor's New Groove Funny movie, a lot of fun!
41. Atlantis Lots of explosions, cool underwater ships, I know many didn't care for it, but I enjoyed it.
42. Lilo & Stitch Great movie, classic!
43. Treasure Planet I know it flopped and some didn't care for it, but I enjoyed this movie. Great adventure and good updating/reimagining of Treasure Island.
44. Brother Bear Great movie, classic!
So, according to what I jotted down here, I'd say that the weakest point for Disney was the package features. That wasn't really Disney's fault, due to the war and the economy at the time. Next would be the period from the late 60's threw the mid 80's.
1. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Great movie, classic!
2. Pinocchio Great movie, classic!
3. Fantasia Great movie, classic!
4. Dumbo Great movie, classic!
5. Bambi Great movie, classic!
Before we go, let's take a lil break to discuss these "Package films." These are a lil more difficult to rate due to the nature of the films. Some of the segments are classic, others not as much so. So, overall these films feel a lil less classic than the rest of the films. They are still watchable/enjoyable, they're just different than the full length stories.
6. Saludos Amigos Don't know if I'd call this one a classic, but I liked it.
7. The Three Caballeros Same thing, no classic, but its okay.
8. Make Mine Music This one was an okay package film.
9. Fun and Fancy Free This one was an okay package film
10. Melody Time This one was an okay package film
11. The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad One of the best of the package films!
12. Cinderella Back to form with this one! Great movie, classic!
13. Alice in Wonderland Enjoyable film
14. Peter Pan Great movie, classic!
15. Lady and the Tramp Pretty good film
16. Sleeping Beauty Amazing visual materpiece, great movie, classic!
17. One Hundred and One Dalmatians Fun movie, funky, sketchy Xerox animation.
18. The Sword in the Stone Enjoyable film
19. Jungle Book Pretty good movie, one of the better ones from this period
20. The Aristocats Fun film
21. Robin Hood This one was okay
22. Adventures of Winnie the Pooh This one was okay as well, I'm not a big "Pooh" fan
23. The Rescuers Fun movie
24. The Fox and the Hound Pretty good film
25. The Black Cauldron One of their weaker films, cool villain and zombies. Does not feel like a Disney film.
26. The Great Mouse Detective Okay movie.
27. Oliver & Company Okay movie.
28. The Little Mermaid Great movie, classic!
29. Rescuers Down Under Good movie.
30. Beauty and the Beast Great movie, classic!
31. Aladdin Great movie, classic!
32. The Lion King Great movie, classic!
33. Pocahontas Okay movie, I never overly cared for this one though.
34. The Hunchback of Notre Dame Great movie, classic!
35. Hercules Great movie, classic!
36. Mulan Great movie, classic!
37. Tarzan Great movie, classic!
38. Fantasia 2000 Great movie, classic!
39. Dinosaur The story felt too similar to Land Before Time, but visually amazing.
40. The Emperor's New Groove Funny movie, a lot of fun!
41. Atlantis Lots of explosions, cool underwater ships, I know many didn't care for it, but I enjoyed it.
42. Lilo & Stitch Great movie, classic!
43. Treasure Planet I know it flopped and some didn't care for it, but I enjoyed this movie. Great adventure and good updating/reimagining of Treasure Island.
44. Brother Bear Great movie, classic!
So, according to what I jotted down here, I'd say that the weakest point for Disney was the package features. That wasn't really Disney's fault, due to the war and the economy at the time. Next would be the period from the late 60's threw the mid 80's.
-
Squirrel
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 436
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 7:54 am
- Location: Indiana farmland
- Contact:
I think the decline started with Pocahontas, actually. But it wasn't a straight drop. It was like a zig-zag decline. As opposed to smash after smash they had been having with the big three there (Beauty, Aladdin, Lion King), up and up and up...
In reality, I guess they had nowhere to go but down. Maybe there was a backlash. Maybe this is when competing companies started creating their own animated films (Dreamworks). Maybe they were releasing too many movies. They're at two a year now...it used to be one, and sometimes with gaps between that, even...
As far as my personal taste goes, I don't think Disney's in a decline at all, artistically. My absolute favorite Disney films have come from this decade: Fantasia 2000, Lilo & Stitch. I also love Brother Bear, and I liked The Emperor's New Groove, too. I like the styles of Lilo and Brother Bear, Lilo especially, which is my favorite Disney film. So I wish the general public would give it a chance.
Maybe audiences are more cynical. Maybe they have more choices, or maybe it's because of DVD, pay-per-view, et cetera. But that wouldn't explain Finding Nemo's success, so those theories go by the wayside. Or was it simply the rise of Pixar? Toy Story was in 95, and I believe that's around the time Disney started to get uneven in finding hits with the public...at the level they had before, during their second renaissance, to to speak.
It's hard to say...when a decline started, with what film. I think it was simply after The Lion King peaked...but I still do like Disney, and I don't think putting 2D on hiatus will increase their fortunes, but we'll see.
I also think Lilo built so much momentum...that Treasure Planet simply squandered. I think there was a chance there to really get flying again, and it sort of faltered.
In reality, I guess they had nowhere to go but down. Maybe there was a backlash. Maybe this is when competing companies started creating their own animated films (Dreamworks). Maybe they were releasing too many movies. They're at two a year now...it used to be one, and sometimes with gaps between that, even...
As far as my personal taste goes, I don't think Disney's in a decline at all, artistically. My absolute favorite Disney films have come from this decade: Fantasia 2000, Lilo & Stitch. I also love Brother Bear, and I liked The Emperor's New Groove, too. I like the styles of Lilo and Brother Bear, Lilo especially, which is my favorite Disney film. So I wish the general public would give it a chance.
Maybe audiences are more cynical. Maybe they have more choices, or maybe it's because of DVD, pay-per-view, et cetera. But that wouldn't explain Finding Nemo's success, so those theories go by the wayside. Or was it simply the rise of Pixar? Toy Story was in 95, and I believe that's around the time Disney started to get uneven in finding hits with the public...at the level they had before, during their second renaissance, to to speak.
It's hard to say...when a decline started, with what film. I think it was simply after The Lion King peaked...but I still do like Disney, and I don't think putting 2D on hiatus will increase their fortunes, but we'll see.
I also think Lilo built so much momentum...that Treasure Planet simply squandered. I think there was a chance there to really get flying again, and it sort of faltered.
Meega na la queesta.
static & silence and a monochrome vision
static & silence and a monochrome vision
Disney's worse point was the 70's - I don't think anybody can deny that. While I enjoy Bedknobs and Broomsticks - I think it would be a better film without the animated section, because hardly any creativity went into the animation at all.
Jungle Book, Robin Hood and Bedknobs all use the same character design for the bear. Jungle Book and Robin Hood use the same character design for the snake. Robin Hood and Bedknobs use the same character design for the lion. How can anyone justify this apart from "production line" mentality?
As for the 90's - well I'm not like most other people (remember, I'm probably the only person who liked the Country Bears film), but I never thought The Lion King or Aladdin were that great in the first place.
Why was Aladdin so good? Robin Williams? The strong villian? The Songs? The 'Comic' sidekick Parrot? All but Robin Williams are "Disney by Numbers". So does doing "Disney By Numbers" no matter how slick, mean Disney are at a creative peak, or does it just mean that they are at the top of their game, but can't do any other type of film?
I praise Disney for doing Hunchback (even if a few of the "Numbers" elements were retained). It is my favourite Disney animated film, because the story actually has so much to say. I also enjoy Atlantis (for what it is - I accept it is flawed) and I adore Treasure Planet.
I'm not sure how Disney squandered anything by making Treasure Planet. The story shows vast amounts of imagination (while it may be a different 'take' on an existing story, so are the bulk of Disney films), the story was incredibly close in spirit to its inspiration and the animation was - at times - outstanding. Perhaps I'm slightly biased because at school one of the set books I had to read and analyse for English was Treasure Island. But to my mind Treasure Planet has a better story and script than any Disney film since 101 Dalmatians (with the exception of Hunchback).
Personally I think Disney's only "down" period was between The Sword in the Stone and The Rescuers. I'm not including The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh as I don't really consider it an animated film being as it's existing shorts patched together). And yes, I do include The Jungle Book, as I don't rate that very highly either (but for the record, my other half does).
To me, the biggest problem with Disney films are stories that don't have strong narrative threads. Pinocchio suffers from this to a certain extent - the whole Monstro section is totally divorced from the previous narrative. There's no logic to it, and no set-up or foreshadowing. He just escapes and returns home to find his family have been swallowed by a whale. I know it's in the original story, and I know it's to show Pinocchio's bravery. But it's just seems to convenient. Couldn't the filmmakers have even shown Gepetto fishing or somthing at the start of the film? Just something to sow the seeds of this future event?
Other films with the same problem are Alice In Wonderland, Peter Pan, Sleeping Beauty (to a lesser extent), The Sword In The Stone, The Jungle Book, and Robin Hood (to a lesser extent). Character motivations are weak. And when motivations are weak, the characters themselves become weak.
I personally think the Disney films from the 80's on have made considerable effort to actually tell stories. I also think that they have made considerable efforts to create more rounded characters. Maybe not more likeble characters, but characters who feel more "real". I see no evidence of a decline.
Jungle Book, Robin Hood and Bedknobs all use the same character design for the bear. Jungle Book and Robin Hood use the same character design for the snake. Robin Hood and Bedknobs use the same character design for the lion. How can anyone justify this apart from "production line" mentality?
As for the 90's - well I'm not like most other people (remember, I'm probably the only person who liked the Country Bears film), but I never thought The Lion King or Aladdin were that great in the first place.
Why was Aladdin so good? Robin Williams? The strong villian? The Songs? The 'Comic' sidekick Parrot? All but Robin Williams are "Disney by Numbers". So does doing "Disney By Numbers" no matter how slick, mean Disney are at a creative peak, or does it just mean that they are at the top of their game, but can't do any other type of film?
I praise Disney for doing Hunchback (even if a few of the "Numbers" elements were retained). It is my favourite Disney animated film, because the story actually has so much to say. I also enjoy Atlantis (for what it is - I accept it is flawed) and I adore Treasure Planet.
I'm not sure how Disney squandered anything by making Treasure Planet. The story shows vast amounts of imagination (while it may be a different 'take' on an existing story, so are the bulk of Disney films), the story was incredibly close in spirit to its inspiration and the animation was - at times - outstanding. Perhaps I'm slightly biased because at school one of the set books I had to read and analyse for English was Treasure Island. But to my mind Treasure Planet has a better story and script than any Disney film since 101 Dalmatians (with the exception of Hunchback).
Personally I think Disney's only "down" period was between The Sword in the Stone and The Rescuers. I'm not including The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh as I don't really consider it an animated film being as it's existing shorts patched together). And yes, I do include The Jungle Book, as I don't rate that very highly either (but for the record, my other half does).
To me, the biggest problem with Disney films are stories that don't have strong narrative threads. Pinocchio suffers from this to a certain extent - the whole Monstro section is totally divorced from the previous narrative. There's no logic to it, and no set-up or foreshadowing. He just escapes and returns home to find his family have been swallowed by a whale. I know it's in the original story, and I know it's to show Pinocchio's bravery. But it's just seems to convenient. Couldn't the filmmakers have even shown Gepetto fishing or somthing at the start of the film? Just something to sow the seeds of this future event?
Other films with the same problem are Alice In Wonderland, Peter Pan, Sleeping Beauty (to a lesser extent), The Sword In The Stone, The Jungle Book, and Robin Hood (to a lesser extent). Character motivations are weak. And when motivations are weak, the characters themselves become weak.
I personally think the Disney films from the 80's on have made considerable effort to actually tell stories. I also think that they have made considerable efforts to create more rounded characters. Maybe not more likeble characters, but characters who feel more "real". I see no evidence of a decline.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
I think the question isn't when will they go back to traditional (because with the DTV sequels they've never really stopped) but will the next traditionally animated film when it's released be a created in America, which would involve the expense of rebuying equipment Disney have short-sightedly sold and hiring staff Disney have let-go (If I was an ex-Disney employee who had found another job - even if outside the animation industry, I'd think more than twice about going back on a short term contract) or would it be created in Australia by the Toon Disney team after simply giving them more money?Maerj wrote:I think that if ya give em like 5 years, there will be another one. I can hear the announcer voice now:Mermaid Kelly wrote:
Also, does anyone think this may have something to do with the crap with Roy and Eisner?
"For the first time in years, Disney presents in the traditon of Bambi, Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast, a traditional animated feature film..."
Personally, I don't think an animated films has to be made by the Feature Animation division in America to be classed as a "classic" or "masterpeice", and I'm more than curious to see what Disney Australia could do if given the time and budget of a 'proper' feature film.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
It seems to me that a renaissance in disney animation occurred when Jeffrey Katzenberg and Roy Disney became involved in the company again. so this list of box office totals (that I got from http://www.boxofficemojo.com) starts at the beginning of that period. I think it's important to realize that, even though we may love these films, the only thing that disney is going to look at is the profits when they evaluate the value of making more.
In my opinion, disney's mistake was that they started churning out these movies every year because they were starting to be so profitable. I think that this made them start scrambling for stories instead of developing winning ideas. I also think that the quality of the feature has waned since the departure of Katzenberg. I actually think that Dreamworks is putting out better quality products now. While I may have enjoyed Atlantis, I know it doesn't have the wide spread appeal that many of the others do. I think they need to go back to the fairy tales and leave off of the action adventure cartoons for a while.
26. The Great Mouse Detective -- 38 Mil
27. Oliver & Company -- 74 Mil
28. The Little Mermaid -- 111 Mil
29. Rescuers Down Under -- 27 Mil
30. Beauty and the Beast -- 171 Mil
31. Aladdin -- 287 mil
32. The Lion King -- 328 Mil
33. Pocahontas -- 141 Mil
34. The Hunchback of Notre Dame -- 100 Mil
35. Hercules -- 99 Mil
36. Mulan -- 120 Mil
37. Tarzan -- 171 Mil
38. Fantasia 2000 -- 60 Mil
39. Dinosaur -- 137 Mil
40. The Emperor's New Groove -- 89 Mil
41. Atlantis -- 84 Mil
42. Lilo & Stitch -- 145 Mil
43. Treasure Planet -- 38 Mil (as of feb - 2003)
44. Brother Bear -- 79 Mil (as of Dec 10, 2003)
In my opinion, disney's mistake was that they started churning out these movies every year because they were starting to be so profitable. I think that this made them start scrambling for stories instead of developing winning ideas. I also think that the quality of the feature has waned since the departure of Katzenberg. I actually think that Dreamworks is putting out better quality products now. While I may have enjoyed Atlantis, I know it doesn't have the wide spread appeal that many of the others do. I think they need to go back to the fairy tales and leave off of the action adventure cartoons for a while.
26. The Great Mouse Detective -- 38 Mil
27. Oliver & Company -- 74 Mil
28. The Little Mermaid -- 111 Mil
29. Rescuers Down Under -- 27 Mil
30. Beauty and the Beast -- 171 Mil
31. Aladdin -- 287 mil
32. The Lion King -- 328 Mil
33. Pocahontas -- 141 Mil
34. The Hunchback of Notre Dame -- 100 Mil
35. Hercules -- 99 Mil
36. Mulan -- 120 Mil
37. Tarzan -- 171 Mil
38. Fantasia 2000 -- 60 Mil
39. Dinosaur -- 137 Mil
40. The Emperor's New Groove -- 89 Mil
41. Atlantis -- 84 Mil
42. Lilo & Stitch -- 145 Mil
43. Treasure Planet -- 38 Mil (as of feb - 2003)
44. Brother Bear -- 79 Mil (as of Dec 10, 2003)
I was told that the 3D versions of Dumbo and Bambi sequels were scrapped. Mainly because they could not match up to the originals' aesthetics and charm.2099net wrote:
I think this is Disney's main reason for wanting to do CGI animation (especially if the reports of their attempted 'handrawn' looking CGI Dumbo and Bambi sequels are true). While the recent appeal of 3D films is one consideration, I'm convinced they're mainly thinking about cheaper spin-offs should a 3D picture become successful.
Did you guys see the 3D Mickey that was on the Oscars earlier this year? Yeesh. Absolutely terrible.
I do have to say that I saw a clip of that Mickey's Philharmonic (not sure the right spelling) in 3D the other day and I was rather impressed by the look and feel and animation of Donald. Very nicely done. Of course, this was only a clip--let's hope the rest of the thing looks, feels good.