What on earth does that mean?Patrick wrote:I'm kind of torn about this. As much as I like animation films like Up and How to Train Your Dragon, I already feel as if they have a formula. The humor in CG animation has been the same ever since Shrek has come out.. and while that's funny, it's already getting old. Not to say I think Disney will only being doing films like that, but I hope that isn't where everything is going. Disney's movies have lost that "classical" feel and been replaced with quick humor and sassy sidekicks. I hope there will be a time sooner rather than later that Disney can return to a more serious film with short bursts of comic relief. And of course, make a really nice happy ending princess flick.
Unless you are able to define what type of humour now pervades through all animation, that's a ridiculous statement. Humour getting old? I've never heard a more ill-informed opinion in my life. It's not like they are telling knock-knock jokes or your-momma jokes. I guess wit and slapstick are so over the hill aren't they?
Classical feel equates to better humour does it? A more serious film with short bursts of comic relief? Short bursts...sounds like quick humour to me. The sassy sidekick is as welcome as ever, unless you'd rather nondescript yes-man bores. Not that Disney has ever had those either.
This just comes off as one of those people longing for the old days and refuses to acknowledge that other movies, studios and people have done better.
Disney Duster is such a caricature, why does anyone bother responding to him?
And on the now refuted article itself; Disney trying to appeal to everyone is misinformed since they end up trying to target young boys, which is dumb. There's nothing wrong with trying to go for a specific demographic but first and foremost you have to make a good movie since a good movie generally transcends those specified demographics anyway. I find it quite disconcerting though that apparent industry heads think that Bratz among other things is a good influence on young girls.
Excuse me, but, our 'culture' these days is so devoid of any. Girls want to be 'hot', are you kidding? This kind of mentality is worrying because it's idiotic, superficial and shallow. Instead of trying to encourage girls to be slutty, anorexic ditzes, Disney, of all studios, should be trying to reverse that with strong female characters (since Pixar seems to be so afraid of approaching that). I actually wouldn't mind if they go away from their infamous princess movies because yes, one thing the article has right, is the fact that girls don't want to be princesses anymore. Not, when being a princess means lying in a bed being useless waiting for their dear prince to come.
With equality and independence, the modern woman should or is a strong character by herself so that should be reflected in the movies. Disney have done this well though as none of the Renaissance films nor PATF or Tangled have painted the damsel in distress that the earlier princess films had and not to say that those sucked because like the controversial Fantasia, they were a product of their time.
Honestly there is just too much emphasis on males. Not that I mind, seeing as I am male, but there is almost a stigma from having a female lead. It is once again a product of our times with most blockbusters having exactly that a leading man, from superheroes to Bond, Pirates, Transformers etc. Animation has also been a proponent of that when the two biggest studios of recent years have male lead after male lead. Yes, there are strong female characters in each movie but there hasn't been a lead. The whole let's play up Flynn Rider and down Rapunzel is idiotic IMO because it conforms to this.
As others have said, instead of imitation they should encourage creation. Whilst I still have faith in Catmull and Lasseter, Bolt was in no way much more creative than American Dog and it was basically Toy Story with a dog. So, when they say they encourage creativity let's hope they mean it because nonsense like Reboot Ralph sound pathetic. Speaking about demographics, who would want to see that? It sounds more of an idea for a short. Hell, it plays with the same old Toy Story Woody inferiority theme again. I do hope Brave is true to source and that it's not tarnished by the director change in an effort to make it more manly. I also hope it's a hit.
Lastly, whilst I initially wished badly for Tangled, seeing as it is a good movie, not that I have seen it, makes me change my mind. I never liked the basic acceptance of changing the name and maybe the story for the target audience (boys) but it's nice to know they have a hit once again. It just doesn't sit well with me because it makes the corporates think that 'We must target boys more often' since it worked here and didn't with PATF. Fact of the matter is, I think it's just got older girls, couples, families and others who probably view hand-drawn as old and inferior. Little boys are still not going to see it in droves, or at least not initially. That's the problem with Disney now, they are always looking for a quick buck and are short-sighted. They pander to the lowest common denominator with many of their live action movies and continue to limit creativity and potential with 'must be G/PG/family friendly only' or 'must attract widespread audience'. Neither of the two are bad per se, but how they go about doing it is when to them widespread audience means all the guys seeing Transformers and family friendly means potty jokes. Good films are not held back by such limitations and ironically of course when you make a good film you make more money in the long run than the quick buck both financially and the invaluable critically.
Another reason why Disney has never won an Oscar, not that it's worth much nowadays, because they are too afraid to take risks that may potentially damage their reputation. What reputation I ask? It's been diluted for years now with Eisner, Iger, Ross etc. from movies to television. They should ignore the vocal minority of retard parents and OCD overly sensitive freaks.
!
