Although one thing with Disney of the 21st Century, they don't know the meaning of the word Consistency
Regarding the Conspiracy,
OK, My mind goes coo coo after watching a WWE Friday Night Smackdown Conspiracy Theory type of Plot. I apologize.
Still, Bob Iger and John Lasseter need to quit thinking like Michael Eisner and about Green Paper. They need to get their rear ends in line and think WWWD (What would Walt Do) and listen to their fans.
Listen do their fans? Don't you mean listen to you and those who think like you only? We are a minority here, why should they listen to us?
Well, hopefully the minority of fans like you and I will grow. And I don't want a CGI Mickey Movie either, I would prefer a 2-D traditional hand drawn one but would settle for CGI. However I'd like to see the movie made, as long as it's not a CGI/Live Action Hybrid
Want to Hear How I met Roy E. Disney in 2003? Click the link Below
TsWade2 wrote:I guess there won't be a 2D movie about Mickey Mouse after all. They did cancel it.
Perhaps it will be CGI/3D
Although one thing with Disney of the 21st Century, they don't know the meaning of the word Consistency
Regarding the Conspiracy,
OK, My mind goes coo coo after watching a WWE Friday Night Smackdown Conspiracy Theory type of Plot. I apologize.
Still, Bob Iger and John Lasseter need to quit thinking like Michael Eisner and about Green Paper. They need to get their rear ends in line and think WWWD (What would Walt Do) and listen to their fans.
Since seeing Paperman, I've often thought that I would love to see them try the hybrid out on classic characters. The way the CG characters look now is horrendous (ala Mickey Mouse Club), but I think there's potential for it to be very cool if they went the hybrid route.
SWillie! wrote:Since seeing Paperman, I've often thought that I would love to see them try the hybrid out on classic characters. The way the CG characters look now is horrendous (ala Mickey Mouse Club), but I think there's potential for it to be very cool if they went the hybrid route.
I know, right? But do you think it'll be better in hybrid?
SWillie! wrote:Since seeing Paperman, I've often thought that I would love to see them try the hybrid out on classic characters. The way the CG characters look now is horrendous (ala Mickey Mouse Club), but I think there's potential for it to be very cool if they went the hybrid route.
I know, right? But do you think it'll be better in hybrid?
I do. Due to the nature of the design of the characters, the simple shapes are what make them more appealing in drawings rather than CG models. The hybrid technique would allow for focus to be on the drawn shapes again.
TsWade2 wrote:I know, right? But do you think it'll be better in hybrid?
I do. Due to the nature of the design of the characters, the simple shapes are what make them more appealing in drawings rather than CG models. The hybrid technique would allow for focus to be on the drawn shapes again.
TsWade2 wrote:I know, right? But do you think it'll be better in hybrid?
I do. Due to the nature of the design of the characters, the simple shapes are what make them more appealing in drawings rather than CG models. The hybrid technique would allow for focus to be on the drawn shapes again.
I hope that's the case. If not just hand-drawn (which I personally want to see more from Disney, in the same technique as Princess and the Frog), at least a hybrid animated film would do.
Although one thing with Disney of the 21st Century, they don't know the meaning of the word Consistency
Regarding the Conspiracy,
OK, My mind goes coo coo after watching a WWE Friday Night Smackdown Conspiracy Theory type of Plot. I apologize.
Still, Bob Iger and John Lasseter need to quit thinking like Michael Eisner and about Green Paper. They need to get their rear ends in line and think WWWD (What would Walt Do) and listen to their fans.
Mickey Mouse in CGI?! Three words:
NO WAY, JOSE!
But the concept has worked on some level before, albeit to middling success. Twice Upon a Christmas and Kingdom Hearts have the best CG renders of Mickey than anything else. Even the in-game graphics are succesful at it.
though any appeal would be hindered by the somewhat jarring nature of the transition until one gets used to it.
Edit: though with regards to in-game graphics, there is less lighting and everything is flat-shaded so it actually looks more like a handdrawn mickey in 3 dimensions rather than full CGI, but still the prerendered one looks far from horrible.
Last edited by ajmrowland on Sat Oct 13, 2012 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
But the concept has worked on some level before, albeit to middling success. Twice Upon a Christmas and Kingdom Hearts have the best CG renders of Mickey than anything else. Even the in-game graphics are successful at it.
Though any appeal would be hindered by the somewhat jarring nature of the transition until one gets used to it.
Exactly, it has potential, if used like Kingdom Hearts or Mickey's Twice Upon a Christmas. Even Epic Mickey is amazing animation of Mickey, though I would rather see Mickey look more like Mickey from the Twice Upon a Christmas and/or Kingdom Hearts
Want to Hear How I met Roy E. Disney in 2003? Click the link Below
ajmrowland wrote:
But the concept has worked on some level before, albeit to middling success. Twice Upon a Christmas and Kingdom Hearts have the best CG renders of Mickey than anything else. Even the in-game graphics are successful at it.
Though any appeal would be hindered by the somewhat jarring nature of the transition until one gets used to it.
Exactly, it has potential, if used like Kingdom Hearts or Mickey's Twice Upon a Christmas. Even Epic Mickey is amazing animation of Mickey, though I would rather see Mickey look more like Mickey from the Twice Upon a Christmas and/or Kingdom Hearts
I know that. The only CGI version of Mickey Mouse is worst is Mickey Mouse Clubhouse.
What I think is funny is that some people claim that it is the story that is important for a movie to be a success or not, not the format. That argument goes either the movie is made in traditional 2D or CGI. But this argument is almost always used to defend that CGI/3D should reign supreme and to stop any complaining about the lack of 2D animated Disney movies, rarely the other way around. And if it was so that format means little and story is key, why would Disney then abandon 2D in the first place (like how they suddenly decided that Tangled and Frozen should be made in 3D instead of 2D) and only focus on 3D?
Considering the argument that format is the only important thing; And yet the market has been bombarded by shitty CGI movies, and they have done really well economically speaking many of them because parents will go and see any random (DreamWorks) computer animated movie starring sarcastic talking animals on speed and with toilet humour. This tells me that format matters because the public have grown to see 3D movies as the mainstream entertainment while 2D is the animation of old days.
But perhaps also 2D animation seems "dead" at Disney because Disney have not had faith in it. Disney have made some mediocre/okay movies that did not do as well as the movies did in the 90s, and because these movies were not as great successes as Shrek etc, Disney have jumped the bandwagon with all the other film studios and focused all their efforts on CGI. After some unsuccessfull/moderately successfull movies in the early 2000s, Disney abandoned 2D and all their animation legacy for good after Home on the Range. Or so they said at that time. Disney stopped being in the front in the animation world, they became uncertain of theirself and their own movies, and the studio everyone had copied (Anastasia, Swan Princess, Prince of Egypt etc) beginned to copy others.
Disney have also destroyed part of their 2D legacy/reputation by making all those cheapquels to their classic movies, and tarnished the Disney animation brand. I am sure that if Disney really tried to make a comeback for 2D, they would eventually make it. They made The Princess and the Frog, and when that movie did not earn as much money as they hoped, they abandoned 2D animation yet again. After just one moderately successfull try, Disney decided to quit the attempt at ressurecting 2D and they were back to 3D again. Rapunzel were switched to 3D and the name was switched to Tangled. Those moves and the advertising were seemingly inspired by how popular the DreamWorks movies are (not with the critics, but they are economically successfull).
Kids growing up today don't have the same relationship to 2D like the kids that grow up in the 1930s and through the 1990s. If Disney does not take some steps to restore the popularity of and the respect for 2D in the minds of the public, they only 2D animated Disney movies we will get to see in the future will be re-realeses of Cinderella and The Lion King. 2D will be a medium that no one will care about. If Disney wants to take care of their historical legacy and keep the medium that made Disney what it is today, they must take some steps soon to restore 2D. It is not strange that the public does not care for 2D movies all the time Disney have stopped making them and thereby stopped exposing the public to 2D.
2D and CGI is equally important for animation, and progress in the world of animation is great. But a form of art would be lost if Disney stops making 2D films. They should know their cultural responsibility and their own history, and safeguard all kinds of animation - 2D, CGI/3D, stop motion etc. Every 2D movie does not need to have a princess, and Disney should make use of advancements in techonology to make 2D movies. If they keep pushing the 2D medium and make great stories, 2D might again win back it's appeal and relevance in the public eye.
Favorite Disney-movies: Snow White, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan, Tangled, Frozen, Pirates, Enchanted, Prince of Persia, Tron, Oz The Great and Powerful
Prince Edward wrote:What I think is funny is that some people claim that it is the story that is important for a movie to be a success or not, not the format. That argument goes either the movie is made in traditional 2D or CGI. But this argument is almost always used to defend that CGI/3D should reign supreme and to stop any complaining about the lack of 2D animated Disney movies, rarely the other way around. And if it was so that format means little and story is key, why would Disney then abandon 2D in the first place (like how they suddenly decided that Tangled and Frozen should be made in 3D instead of 2D) and only focus on 3D?
.
Wrong. The 'story' argument is often used to support 2D. People like to claim that 2D films would be as profitable as CG films because only the story matters, apparently.
Prince Edward wrote:What I think is funny is that some people claim that it is the story that is important for a movie to be a success or not, not the format. That argument goes either the movie is made in traditional 2D or CGI. But this argument is almost always used to defend that CGI/3D should reign supreme and to stop any complaining about the lack of 2D animated Disney movies, rarely the other way around. And if it was so that format means little and story is key, why would Disney then abandon 2D in the first place (like how they suddenly decided that Tangled and Frozen should be made in 3D instead of 2D) and only focus on 3D?
.
Wrong. The 'story' argument is often used to support 2D. People like to claim that 2D films would be as profitable as CG films because only the story matters, apparently.
People on this site have said that Disney fans should be content that Disney is doing animation at all, that CGI/3D is the future and that we 2D fans should be happy as well and not bother about the medium, because the story matters much more than the medium.
Favorite Disney-movies: Snow White, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan, Tangled, Frozen, Pirates, Enchanted, Prince of Persia, Tron, Oz The Great and Powerful
qindarka wrote:
Wrong. The 'story' argument is often used to support 2D. People like to claim that 2D films would be as profitable as CG films because only the story matters, apparently.
People on this site have said that Disney fans should be content that Disney is doing animation at all, that CGI/3D is the future and that we 2D fans should be happy as well because story matters more than the medium.
People on this site have also said that story is the primary determiner of box-office success and that Disney should continue making 2D films because the medium doesn't really affect the profits.
It’s interesting to me that Lasseter often states that, “Story is king.” Clearly, that’s not the case. (Not that I ever believed it was, but it is interesting to me.)
I’m sure Disney may have a hand-drawn feature once every 10-12 years, but I don’t really consider that evidence that hand-drawn animation is alive. Sounds more comatose to me.
Listening to most often lately:
Taylor Swift ~ ~ "The Fate of Ophelia"
Taylor Swift ~ "Eldest Daughter"
Taylor Swift ~ "CANCELLED!"
Disney's Divinity wrote:It’s interesting to me that Lasseter often states that, “Story is king.” Clearly, that’s not the case. (Not that I ever believed it was, but it is interesting to me.)
I don't think the fact that there are other factors negates the fact that story is still the most important. They spend much longer working on the story than any other aspect of any production, no matter the medium.
I just hate that format is being blamed and not the quality of the films, again. PATF wasn't a very good or very successful movie (for Disney) so what do they do? Kill traditional again, and let the directors (who at this point have 3 dubs in a row) make another film. Huh? [/i]
