DVDizzy Forum

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

Sotiris wrote: I don't think so. I believe that those are just trolls. You can tell because they said that Eric Goldberg is doing animation tests when in fact the movie is still at its pitching/storyboard phase. Besides, Steve Hulett debunked that rumour saying that he has seen artwork from their film and it's not Rumpelstiltskin.

That makes me sad; the quote disneyprincess11 showed got my hopes up, especially due to the description of 'mind blowing'. Stupid trolls.

Oh ok, Sotiris. And sorry, Doc.

Hey, has Steven Spielberg ever worked on a movie that bombed financially? Because I think Disney should get HIM to work on a future animated Disney film.

I mean, if it weren't for him, Disney wouldn't have upped their game in its Dark Age when Don Bluth made An American Tail and The Land Before Time (two of which Spielberg worked on).

"Always" kinda bombed. But out of Spielberg's fantastic track record, one blip is nothing...

Yeah, but after Roger Rabbit and the Bluth films, Spielberg's track record with successful theatrical animated features disappeared. Fievel Goes West, We're Back: A Dinosaur's Story and Balto all bombed.

His animated television shows, on the other hand...

monorail91 wrote:"Always" kinda bombed. But out of Spielberg's fantastic track record, one blip is nothing...

And 1941.

Actually, 1941 did turn a profit. But its gross was considered rather disappointing, following the humongous success of Jaws and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Its critical reception didn't help matters, either.

estefan wrote:Yeah, but after Roger Rabbit and the Bluth films, Spielberg's track record with successful theatrical animated features disappeared. Fievel Goes West, We're Back: A Dinosaur's Story and Balto all bombed.

Oh, come on! It wasn't his fault that Fievel Goes West, We're Back and Balto "bombed"! They were just each released against Beauty and the Beast, Mrs. Doubtfire and Toy Story (the moneymakers at the time)!

Steven Spielberg has enough producing power on his films that he actually does influence when they're released. He himself chose to release The Adventures of Tintin and War Horse a week apart this Christmas.

So, if he felt that those films would bomb against those films, he could have easily moved them with no problem.

But, hey, like I said, he did incredibly well with animated television series during the '90s. I have no idea why he stopped producing animated shows.

DisneyJedi wrote:

estefan wrote:Yeah, but after Roger Rabbit and the Bluth films, Spielberg's track record with successful theatrical animated features disappeared. Fievel Goes West, We're Back: A Dinosaur's Story and Balto all bombed.

Oh, come on! It wasn't his fault that Fievel Goes West, We're Back and Balto "bombed"! They were just each released against Beauty and the Beast, Mrs. Doubtfire and Toy Story (the moneymakers at the time)!

I agree. Poor Balto! He didn't deserve a bomb, no matter how fantastic Toy Story is.

Well, surely, if he can make two of Don Bluth's movies successful financially and critically, the same for Who Framed Roger Rabbit, imagine how well a Disney film could do with Spielberg on board.

inb4Disneyessencedebate

^What's that supposed to mean?

That seems very self-explanatory.

In b4 Disney essence debate.

SWillie! wrote:That seems very self-explanatory.

In b4 Disney essence debate.

Might as well be something we all have in our signature.

Alcazam wrote: And that's the whole point. There are several strategies for making money. Blaming traditional animation for the move to CGI rather than a lack of creativity and solid storytelling will make money. Instead of adressing the real problem, the studio can just change the appearance - or medium or packaging, if you will - instead of changing the content.

Guess my point is that you need people at the top who believe in the project. How would The Lion King, Hunchback and even Atlantis be possible without having someone believing in it, both artistically and money-wise?

When the executives stop believing that the artist can create something good, then it seems to be all but impossible to change their mind. So instead of spending time and energy trying to convince someone who can't be convinced, it's better to replace him with someone who actually believe it can be done. That there'll be another Lion King or Aladdin.

Otherwise the main concern will be to cut corners, which Disney has done for the last 5-10 years.

I really had hoped that Princess and the Frog would be a return to the medium. It surely will take a few years to build up what the Eisner paranoia has torn down, but I look forward to see what Musker/Clements will to next, both in terms of story and style.

Studios, Round and About
http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... about.html

Steve Hulett wrote:Board and development artists reaffirmed that A) Development has kicked up, and B) Ron and John's picture, though not in "bright green light" phase, is still moving along ... and the development art is terrific.

Why hasn't this been given the green light yet?

I'll tell you why: it's because it's a hand-drawn project and thus viewed as a major gamble and risk for the studio.

I wonder if it will eventually see the light of day. Well, let's hope so. With the pace the project is going I'm afraid it won't be any time soon.

While I’m happy they’re making something new, I’m also mad it’s probably not Fraidy Cat. Just another reason to hate David Stainton.

Who's David Stainton again?

Studios, Round and About
http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... about.html

Steve Hulett wrote:Without giving too much away, Ron and John's next animated feature....

Is not Rumplestiltskin or Jack the Ripper...

Is a departure from their previous work...

Has exciting visuals and animation (in development)...

May or may not get made since it hasn't been "greenlit" for production.

Since we already know that their film is going to be a musical, when Steve says that it's "a departure from their previous work" it probably means it's not going to be a fairytale.

Sotiris wrote: Since we already know that their film is going to be a musical, when Steve says that it's "a departure from their previous work" it probably means it's not going to be a fairytale.

Hopefully, it will at least still be hand-drawn.

But... if it IS gonna be a musical, who's doing the music?