Dinosaur a "Classic"?

[drfsupercenter]

I also don't consider it a classic...

Then again, I just ignore most things Disney does nowadays. They've pretty much destroyed their cable channel(s), and the only good movies they've made recently were either Pixar or live action. They're giving me less and less reason to trust anything they say.

[TM2-Megatron]

If you have a Blu-ray player I would recommend getting the Blu-ray. The picture is so vibrant!

And the extras abysmal... even worse than the single-disc DVD edition. The 2-disc Collectors Edition DVD of this film had stellar bonus content; and even 2 commentaries. This Blu-Ray doesn't even have proper menus, according to a review I read; but rather some kind of pop-up things you have to use while the film is playing.

Anyway, going by the review over at DVDTalk.com, the video quality isn't even that impressive for this release. It was one of Disney's early efforts at Blu-Ray, and similarly their early DVD releases were also crap... this release doesn't even use H.264 encoding, but rather the dated MPEG-2.

Personally, I wouldn't buy this Blu-Ray release.

But it's a CGI film. It should always go with CGI films. Always. It's just the right thing to do.

You know you agree.

So Meet the Robinsons and Bolt should be all grouped in some kind of CG category, as well? CGI is simply another animation technique, not a new genre in itself... Disney's been innovating new techniques since the company was founded (starting with its multi-plane camera); an animation style should be chosen for a film based on the best format to tell the story in. All CGI films certainly shouldn't be grouped together; that's a ridiculous bias.

[Tannerman]

If Dinosaur is a "classic", the TRON should be as well

[jotaabs]

Well, to me, it doesn't bothers me if Dinasour is a classic or not.

But can you tell me the reason why you don't consider it? It was done by Disney, so it should fit in the line...

[Disney's Divinity]

So Meet the Robinsons and Bolt should be all grouped in some kind of CG category, as well? CGI is simply another animation technique, not a new genre in itself... Disney's been innovating new techniques since the company was founded (starting with its multi-plane camera); an animation style should be chosen for a film based on the best format to tell the story in. All CGI films certainly shouldn't be grouped together; that's a ridiculous bias.

As for the CG versus 2D debate, I personally wouldn’t group them together, but that’s just me. I don’t feel the same way about a 3D film as I do a 2D film and there’s no getting around that. There’s no saying, “It’s just a new technique,” that’s going to change how I react to the film, in the same way that I don’t react to a stop-motion film, an animated TV show or a cheapquel the same way. That isn’t to say that I hate CG films--I don’t. I just don’t think of them the same as I do a 2D film.

And I don’t think it’s ridiculous to group all 3D films together. We group Hunchback, Hercules, Atlantis, 101 Dalmatians and Snow White all in the same category despite their vastly different stories and visual styles, so what’s the difference?

[TM2-Megatron]

As for the CG versus 2D debate, I personally wouldn’t group them together, but that’s just me. I don’t feel the same way about a 3D film as I do a 2D film and there’s no getting around that. There’s no saying, “It’s just a new technique,” that’s going to change how I react to the film, in the same way that I don’t react to a stop-motion film, an animated TV show or a cheapquel the same way. That isn’t to say that I hate CG films--I don’t. I just don’t think of them the same as I do a 2D film.

It all depends how you choose to group things, I guess. A generic animation category contains all 2-D and 3-D films. That grouping can be subdivided based on the animation type, but not just 'cuz you "feel differently" about 3-D movies. Ultimately, both are used as a way of telling stories; and it's the story that's the most important aspect. In many cases, a particular style of animation is chosen because it's the most appropriate way to tell the story in question... I seriously doubt the TV series Reboot would've been as good had it been animated traditionally... but it's still basically about the story.

And I don’t think it’s ridiculous to group all 3D films together. We group Hunchback, Hercules, Atlantis, 101 Dalmatians and Snow White all in the same category despite their vastly different stories and visual styles, so what’s the difference?

All those certainly aren't grouped together under all possible ways you can categorize. They're all Animated Classics, yes; but so is Dinosaur. If you can group all those others together despite the different stories and animation styles, why not Dinosaur? It's just another animation style, regardless of how you personally choose to feel about the movies. If you were to take those same movies and group them by which ones were actually good, a few would dissapear. You could seperate them by decade, the actual genre each story falls into... any number of things. The only thing any of them really have in common is that they're made by Disney, and that company has put them on its official list of Animated Classics.

Thinking of all 3-D movies "differently" than 2-D, though, is just as bad as the Oscars perpetually giving all animation the shaft due to nothing more than a silly bias, and the fact most of the members of the Academy are far too old.

[Disney's Divinity]

It all depends how you choose to group things, I guess. A generic animation category contains all 2-D and 3-D films. That grouping can be subdivided based on the animation type, but not just 'cuz you "feel differently" about 3-D movies. Ultimately, both are used as a way of telling stories; and it's the story that's the most important aspect. In many cases, a particular style of animation is chosen because it's the most appropriate way to tell the story in question... I seriously doubt the TV series Reboot would've been as good had it been animated traditionally... but it's still basically about the story.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. What about Pixar, which solely makes CG films? You mean every idea they've ever made could only possibly fit as a CG film? Could Meet the Robinsons, Bolt or Chicken Little not work in 2D?

Reboot is certainly a perfect example of why 3D should be used for story purposes (I love that show!), but, besides Dinosaur, I don't think any movie that Disney's made in 3D wouldn't work as good, if not better in some cases, as 2D.

And if we can't divide animation into sub-categories, then why divide films into sub-categories? Why don't we have Mary Poppins, Cinderella, and The Apple Dumpling Gang all side-by-side? They're all Disney films and they all present stories--does the way they're presented make no difference at all? If not, then why have the divisions in the first place?

All those certainly aren't grouped together under all possible ways you can categorize. They're all Animated Classics, yes; but so is Dinosaur. If you can group all those others together despite the different stories and animation styles, why not Dinosaur? It's just another animation style, regardless of how you personally choose to feel about the movies. If you were to take those same movies and group them by which ones were actually good, a few would dissapear. You could seperate them by decade, the actual genre each story falls into... any number of things. The only thing any of them really have in common is that they're made by Disney, and that company has put them on its official list of Animated Classics.

But I wasn't talking about whether they were "good" or not, but the fact that they are all grouped together as 2D films in the same way that all 3D films would be grouped together (despite their differences in storytelling and style). My point was that it would be no more biased to group 3D films together than it would be to group 2D films together, which is what you were disagreeing with Lazario for in the first place.

[TM2-Megatron]

I don't think that's necessarily the case. What about Pixar, which solely makes CG films? You mean every idea they've ever made could only possibly fit as a CG film? Could Meet the Robinsons, Bolt or Chicken Little not work in 2D?

Many of those could've worked as 2-D, yeah... it isn't based on the story all the time. A good example is what happened with Disney not so long ago, believing that CGI was the new hot thing, and canning their 2-D departments. A stupid move, to be sure.

I think Meet the Robinsons, at least, worked better as a 3-D movie than it would've as 2-D, though. Bolt could go either way, and I really would've preferred they not make Chicken Little at all.

And if we can't divide animation into sub-categories, then why divide films into sub-categories? Why don't we have Mary Poppins, Cinderella, and The Apple Dumpling Gang all side-by-side? They're all Disney films and they all present stories--does the way they're presented make no difference at all? If not, then why have the divisions in the first place?

It makes a difference, but not as massive a difference as you seem to think CGI is from more traditional animation. You can divide live-action into B&W and Colour, if you want to be incredibly broad... or you can divide it by genre, in which case B&W and Colour movies would get mixed up. Similarly, 2-D vs. CGI is a very broad categorization.

But I wasn't talking about whether they were "good" or not, but the fact that they are all grouped together as 2D films in the same way that all 3D films would be grouped together (despite their differences in storytelling and style). My point was that it would be no more biased to group 3D films together than it would be to group 2D films together, which is what you were disagreeing with Lazario for in the first place.

I'd only group all 2-D films together if somebody explicity asked me to "list all the traditionally animated films you can think of"... and I certainly don't list those five you mentioned together because they're all 2-D. As I said, Disney has chosen to classify them as Animated Classics; and as far as this thread concerning Animated Classics goes, that's all they really have in common.

Disney's Animated Classics is an arbitrary grouping, not just limited to 2-D; and that's what this thread is really about. Fantasia 2000 is undeniably an animated classic, yet it contains only 2 segments that would qualify as traditional animation (and one of which was heavily computer-assisted, as most 2-D animation is these days). If Disney wants to put Dinosaur on that list, it's their call... simply being a 3-D animated movie doesn't disqualify it.