DVDizzy Forum

I saw the chipmunks squeakquel.....and honestly....in story...I didn't feel it surpassed the first movie as in hilarity......I thought the first one was funny....the sequel honestly was too predictiable......

In conclusion.....Princess and the Frog is in my opinion better story wise because the chipmunks I felt like it was too predictable.....It felt to me the chipmunks sequel plot has been done in other movies.....

disneyboy20022 wrote:I saw the chipmunks squeakquel.....and honestly....in story...I didn't feel it surpassed the first movie as in hilarity......I thought the first one was funny....the sequel honestly was too predictiable......

In conclusion.....Princess and the Frog is in my opinion better story wise because the chipmunks I felt like it was too predictable.....It felt to me the chipmunks sequel plot has been done in other movies.....

Isn't this obvious?
And Chipmunks 2 has so many other reasons why Princess and the Frog is better than it besides the fact that it was predictable.

a-net-fan wrote:Does anyone think that the whole Racial Focus in this movies promotion did it more harm then good?? I had a co worker say something to me the other day that made me wonder about this.

I dont think so. Most of the racial discussion regarding this film has been behind the scenes stuff you would find in Variety or other news outlets. But Disney in the promos (that I've seen at least) of the film never pushes "first black princess" in your face. That was a wise move on Disney's part.

One thing I'm thinking is that Disney animated films were only hits at certain times (or certain generations). You wonder why films like Pinocchio weren't huge hits despite the fact that it was the first film after Snow White.

I think perhaps it's a generational thing. People dont enjoy Disney films like they used to or cant enjoy anything that Disney pushes out now because it's nothing like films they would see in their childhood. I'm part of the Fab Four generation. We're all like in our 20s-30s now and yes there are still some who still wait in line for the next Disney film but we are just some.

Disney films are gonna be foremost for families with younger kids. The Princess and the Frog is definitly a film for those audiences to attend. But I am thinking maybe parents dont want to take their kids to the movies these days cause of the prices.

Please take my insane theories with a grain of salt

I have faith that this film will do well in DVD sales.

I personally haven't seen very much "first black princess" promotion for the film. I really wouldn't find that type of promotion to be too successful. It almost makes the "first black princess" appear to be a gimmick and that the film revolves around that idea rather than the film revolving around a main character that happens to be black. From people I've talked to, they seem to be under the impression that it's a gimmick. Perhaps that has turned some people off.

Anyway, I hope the numbers go much higher because it really deserves it.

Maerj wrote:I think that Disney caused this on themselves. No, its not the movies but the marketing and merchandising.

They came up with the "Disney Princesses" marketing gimmick, which has taken some of their all time great movies and is using them to sell dolls and junk. By doing this they have cheapened their own brand.

[...] But between things like that and a decade of cheapquels, they killed their own brand.

Excellent observation! I couldn't agree more. This is definitly one of the biggest contributors. Also, Disney did this to themselves by ruïning the reputation of 2D films by making awful 'Classics' after Tarzan. Really only Lilo & Stitch is the exception. The other films were terrible. Home on the Range is the worst movie I've ever seen.

nomad2010 wrote:As for this being the end of 2D animation at Disney, if they do end it again, I'm done with their new movies. Disney is Disney because of 2D. It's the only company that was ever successful in it (on a large scale).

Not that I don't adore 2D-animation, but I think that, had Walt Disney still been alive, he wouldn't have made any 2D animated movies anymore. I heared Joe Grant say that (I believe it's on the 'Lilo & Stitch' dvd), and I totally agree. Grant said that Walt would have embraced the new technology, because he was always an innovator. He was the first one to make a cartoon with synchronised sound; the first one to make a feature-lenght cartoon; the first one to make a cartoon in color etc. I remember reading he lost interest in animation already by the time Lady and the Tramp was in production. He wanted to make live-action movies.

nomad2010 wrote:It needs to look like classic animation, Beauty and the Beast or Cinderella-eque characters. Not Princess and the Frog big eyes and exaggerated Lilo and Stich looks. This movie needs to be something beautiful that both the critics and families can enjoy.

I'm sorry, but Lilo & Stitch *was* that movie! It had more heart and warmth and sincerity than any other movie Disney has put out since Tarzan. Wait, forget that last part... It was one of the most touching, sincere, yet humorous films in all Disney history. They don't need to rehash all their musical fairytale clichés over and over again to find succes.

nomad2010 wrote:Everyone loves Disney but they just aren't excited about it anymore because we haven't had a true classic since Lion King.

Then you must have missed Hunchback of Notre Dame, Mulan and Tarzan; all far better Classics than Lion King. Just because they made less money than TLK doesn't mean they were/did bad.

Rudy Matt wrote:The polarization of the country regarding the health care bill isn't helping this movie at all. Terrible timing. Not the fault of poor Musker and Clements.

Anyhoo, they took a gamble, and they crapped out. The mood of the country was against them - same thing happened to Dumbo and Bambi.

DaveWadding wrote:Can I ask you a serious question?

Are you on drugs?

pap64 wrote:And what does this have to do with anything?

OBVIOUSLY, Rudy Matt was being sarcastic in mocking all the various reasons people are giving for the supposed 'failure' of PatF. I must say, I had to laugh out loud when I read that! He's satirizing other people's excuses for the poor box office returns --blaming everything except the film.

Goliath wrote: Excellent observation! I couldn't agree more. This is definitly one of the biggest contributors. Also, Disney did this to themselves by ruïning the reputation of 2D films by making awful 'Classics' after Tarzan. Really only Lilo & Stitch is the exception. The other films were terrible. Home on the Range is the worst movie I've ever seen.

Goliath, you haven't been seeing any of DreamWorks' products, have you?

eh, I like movies that good substances to them. I don't really put one film over the other.

I haven't seen many of the 2000's 2D animated movies. Just Atlantis, fantasia 2000, Emperor's groove, and Lilio and Stitch. I like all them but find Emperor's groove too comedy forced for my taste.

As for the ones in the 90's, I do like Hunchback of Notre Dame the best. I like Lion King mainly because I have big fond for Lions but I do despise what the Lion King fanbase have turn the franchise into(do DA and you'll know what I mean).
Tarzan- great but I could do without Terk.
Hercules- decent movie but again it turned too comedy based.
Mulan- I like. poor choice in Mushu's VA
Pocohantas- ....I never really cared for it. I don't hate it but just never clicked to me.
Aladdin and BatB- I think the characters' screentime, pacing and story structure well made.
The Little Mermaid- I think it's is overrated but I don't hate it.

Margos wrote:

Goliath wrote: Excellent observation! I couldn't agree more. This is definitly one of the biggest contributors. Also, Disney did this to themselves by ruïning the reputation of 2D films by making awful 'Classics' after Tarzan. Really only Lilo & Stitch is the exception. The other films were terrible. Home on the Range is the worst movie I've ever seen.

Goliath, you haven't been seeing any of DreamWorks' products, have you?

If you mean DreamWork's 2D movies, then i'm going have to disagree with you there.
Prince of Egypt
Spirit
Sinbad
Road to El Dorado

all felt enjoyable to me.

Enjoyable, maybe. Up to par with any DAC, absolutely not! Although "Prince of Egypt" was definitely their greatest triumph.

Really, I love all Disney movies, and I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a little biased when it comes to animation studios. If it's not Disney, it's not the best. Plain and simple. Of course, that's not to say all non-Disney animated films are crap. "Corpse Bride" is actually really good. Some other ones aren't complete crap. But really, Disney's the top of the heap, and even their weakest films are better than DreamWorks' strongest, IMO.

Margos wrote:Enjoyable, maybe. Up to par with any DAC, absolutely not! Although "Prince of Egypt" was definitely their greatest triumph.

Really, I love all Disney movies, and I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a little biased when it comes to animation studios. If it's not Disney, it's not the best. Plain and simple. Of course, that's not to say all non-Disney animated films are crap. "Corpse Bride" is actually really good. Some other ones aren't complete crap. But really, Disney's the top of the heap, and even their weakest films are better than DreamWorks' strongest, IMO.

I stopped right there. No need to take you seriously anymore.[/i]

Margos wrote:Enjoyable, maybe. Up to par with any DAC, absolutely not! Although "Prince of Egypt" was definitely their greatest triumph.

Really, I love all Disney movies, and I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a little biased when it comes to animation studios. If it's not Disney, it's not the best. Plain and simple. Of course, that's not to say all non-Disney animated films are crap. "Corpse Bride" is actually really good. Some other ones aren't complete crap. But really, Disney's the top of the heap, and even their weakest films are better than DreamWorks' strongest, IMO.

I personally find it annoying how some fans are quick to label anything not made by Disney or Pixar as crap (not talking about you solely, just that blind fanboyism is a pet peeve of mine on any kind of fandom).

Let's give DreamWorks credit here. Yes, it was founded by a former Disney chairman, a man that some say is filled with spite towards Disney. But they make animated movies that are different from the norm. When they first started in 1998, many studios just imitated Disney's style (fairy tale princess musicals).

The Prince of Egypt make come off as being pretentious due to being a Bible story, but again, they sought out to do something different. It was a musical, sure, but it wasn't Broadway styled. It was more like an opera, and at times it was breathtaking.

Then with Road to El Dorado they did a wonderful action adventure buddy comedy, a genre very rarely seen in animation (unless you want to count the Pixar films). Again, it was very different and stood out for me.

Chicken Run may not have been a true Dreamworks film, but it was very fun, inventive and a clever send off to POW films.

Shrek is definitely the turning point of the studios, and its success was a double edged sword for them. They definitely created something that was, once again, different from other movies. But, after its success all movies would be based around that formula, and I think this is where DreamWorks became more commercial and less creative with their films.

So to me, post DreamWorks films were fun, creative, inspired and unique from anything else in theaters.

What I am saying is that DreamWorks often gets a bad rap for milking their franchises dry. But when it has its sights on making a great film with a fantastic story they do it very, very well, and their past films are proof of this.

Also, have you seen The Iron Giant? That is a fantastic non-Disney film.

pap64 wrote:
Also, have you seen The Iron Giant? That is a fantastic non-Disney film.

Well said paragraph, pap64. (when ever I see your username I keep thinking of Nintendo 64. Dunno why)

And Yes Iron Giant is perfect example of a great underrated animated movie.

Super Aurora wrote:

pap64 wrote:
Also, have you seen The Iron Giant? That is a fantastic non-Disney film.

Well said paragraph, pap64. (when ever I see your username I keep thinking of Nintendo 64. Dunno why)

And Yes Iron Giant is perfect example of a great underrated animated movie.

Slightly off topic, but when I first got the internet in 1998 I was a HUGE Nintendo 64 fan, so when I created my first username I chose pappel64. The first three letters were my nickname, the second three letters were my father's nickname and the 64 was because of the N64.

So you are right in your assumption .

pap64 wrote:Also, have you seen The Iron Giant? That is a fantastic non-Disney film.

The Iron Giant is one of my most favorite movies! I remember blind-buying it from Target; best risk I ever took. The giant's line: "Hogarth, you stay. I go. No following." always gets me.

Margos wrote:If it's not Disney, it's not the best. Plain and simple. Of course, that's not to say all non-Disney animated films are crap.

So what makes Disney different from other studios? Is it their name? Because Disney artists are just as talented as those from Pixar, Studio Ghibli, LAIKA, Blue Sky, and Dreamworks. Majority, maybe even all of them, over at Disney praise Miyazaki's films and look up to him for inspiration.

Heck, Disney rejected Andrew Stanton twice for a job at their studio. So if he created Finding Nemo under Disney's house, it'd be as good as a DAC? Disney also fired John Lasseter because he was trying the new technologies. You tell me who the real artist is. The one resorting to old styles and formulas, or the one risking new mediums and ways to do things.

Is it their style? I guess if their characters don't break into song, it has no chance to be a good movie.

But, I'm not to judge. You're just limiting yourself to what animation can do outside of the little box Disney has put it in.

Why does this discussion feel like it turned anti-Disney?

Margos wrote:Enjoyable, maybe. Up to par with any DAC, absolutely not! Although "Prince of Egypt" was definitely their greatest triumph.

Really, I love all Disney movies, and I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a little biased when it comes to animation studios. If it's not Disney, it's not the best. Plain and simple.

Margos, I always enjoy your posts and respect your opinions, but I'm sorry: that is a dumb thing to say. The name of the studio doesn't make the product good (or bad). DreamWorks has made many movies that are far better than abysmal Disney-crap like Home on the Range. The Prince of Egypt is a thousand times better than any of the animated films Disney put out after 2000 (with Lilo & Stitch being the only exception). I also liked the first two Shrek-films. Disney's recent films can't hold a candle to them.

(Note that I'm not talking about Pixar.)

The_Iceflash wrote:Why does this discussion feel like it turned anti-Disney?

Goliath wrote:

Margos wrote:Enjoyable, maybe. Up to par with any DAC, absolutely not! Although "Prince of Egypt" was definitely their greatest triumph.

Really, I love all Disney movies, and I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a little biased when it comes to animation studios. If it's not Disney, it's not the best. Plain and simple.

Margos, I always enjoy your posts and respect your opinions, but I'm sorry: that is a dumb thing to say. The name of the studio doesn't make the product good (or bad). DreamWorks has made many movies that are far better than abysmal Disney-crap like Home on the Range. The Prince of Egypt is a thousand times better than any of the animated films Disney put out after 2000 (with Lilo & Stitch being the only exception). I also liked the first two Shrek-films. Disney's recent films can't hold a candle to them.

(Note that I'm not talking about Pixar.)

Dark confession that I as a Disney fan must make.

Of the animated film DVDs that I do own the majority are WDFA films but I do not own one single Pixar film on DVD. I did have Finding Nemo for a little while but didnt think it was worth keeping and sold it off. I dont have much money so I try to keep my DVD collection limited to must owns. I will traditionally see a Pixar film when it's in theaters or on TV but I do not feel the need to own any of these films on DVD for some reason. In the future that may change.

I do own two Dreamworks animated films on DVD: Spirit Stallion of the Cimarron and Kung Fu Panda. Kung Fu Panda was a must own for me after I saw it in theaters and I have soundtracks to both films. I also plan to soon acquire Monsters vs Aliens on DVD.

I do agree however that the past decade in WDFA has been stale. Brother Bear is the only DVD from this decade that I have but even that film is a little mediocre and barely qualifies as a must own. I'm gonna be all over The Princess and the Frog come release day though.

In closing: everyone has different taste in animation. My taste is that Disney still ranks #1 with me as having the most likable and gotta have films but all of them are in the 2D animation sector.

magicalwands wrote:
So what makes Disney different from other studios? Is it their name? Because Disney artists are just as talented as those from Pixar, Studio Ghibli, LAIKA, Blue Sky, and Dreamworks. Majority, maybe even all of them, over at Disney praise Miyazaki's films and look up to him for

Childhood memories. People get nostalgic and thing everything from their childhood was great, even if it was awful. Nothing wrong with it, just pointing it out.