DVDizzy Forum

DisneyJedi wrote:Hey, Lazario. Did I mention this? At least I don't make up BS reasons for not liking certain films.

I do think he overanalyzes movies but his reasons for not liking certain films are hardly BS. At the very least, they make sense to himself and that's all that matters really.

DisneyJedi wrote:Oh, yeah? If it was so-called "lousy", then how do you explain its worldwide gross combined with its revenue on home video?

Lazario wrote:Grow up. Everyone knows just because a movie makes a lot of money doesn't make it good.

All right, you two! Break it up! Everybody respect his or her opinions. So stop it or you'll end up acting like people from Soap Operas.

qindarka wrote:I do think he overanalyzes movies but his reasons for not liking certain films are hardly BS. At the very least, they make sense to himself and that's all that matters really.

I'm not the only one. Look at the people who made mountains out of molehills like Forrest Gump, A Beautiful Mind, and The Shawshank Redemption. Are these films in any way deep- HELL no. But the masses decided they were complex and meaningful and they in turn analyze them. I didn't start this trend and my view is not in any way a deviation from the procedure which became the norm.

And how is what I do overanalyzing? I say most people's opinions - even on this board - which they share aren't real opinions at all. They're reactions. I "liked" this, I "didn't like" that- does that show any real thought at all?

Also... what I mostly do that very few people pick up on is that I first analyze other people's opinions on a movie rather than just analyzing the movie first. Depending on what kind of a movie it is.

This thread in four images...

I have to say, Glen is hands down my favorite of the so-called "Modern Disney Animation Legends." I'm really sad to hear this, and will be interested to see the state of Disney Animation in the next five to ten years (I have my worries, but some projects could prove to be good), but I have to say I'm not surprised. The man has been working for almost four decades. A lot of people retire after that much time. Further, I don't get the feeling (as many have pointed out) that he was happy at Disney the last few years. It is not the same studio he started out at, an I kind of feel they were holding his imagination back. Then let's not forget, his father passed away not that long ago. From what I've heard, he is a big family man, I'm sure he wants to spend more time with family and work on solo projects.

Whatever he does next, it really is Disney's loss. Disney Animation really needs some new blood to step up and be the new "Legends," but outside of maybe Byron Howard and Stephen J. Anderson, I don't see too many other top talent at Disney right now. The best talent right now is at Pixar and Dreamworks.

Steve Hulett wrote:I've actually talked to Keane about his leaving. And he thought it was a natural thing to do. Was looking forward to it.

Source: http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... rture.html

So Glen wanted to leave to work "without walls"? That sounds exactly like what me and others have been saying - he wanted to work without Disney management altering or stifling his ideas.

And Tangled was one huge example of that. And it's the last film he worked on before he left. No, we don't definately know that was it, but we can point out the obvious.

Anyway, I wish people would give what Glen later wanted a chance - CGI that you all would like because it would look a lot like the han-drawn, hand-painted, past Disney films. If he had been able to work on it for as long and as much as we wanted...maybe it could have come true? And he did advance it pretty far, too.

DisneyJedi wrote:Honestly, I thought Tangled was great, but my heart's a little more deadset on Princess and the Frog. At least Disney PROVED that they weren't calling it quits completely with the latter.

OHHH...That's why you love and want to defend that film so much...not the best reason, buddy!

Marky_198 wrote:

Sotiris wrote:In the "Art of Tangled", it says that the Fragonard painting-like style Glen wanted was deemed too distracting by the management and so they axed it.

Just like the animation and bright colors in Snowwhite would be too distracting and assuming people wouldn't like to see that?
Luckily Walt went his own way.

Well the Fragonard style was much more creamy and detailed and...was just much more than what Snow White had. It very well could have been distracting. That doesn't mean the film could have looked painterly as Snow White. Just that the original painting style was too much.

A fix for that could be to just make the style emulate a less detailed painting. the more impressionistic you go the less distracting it would be.

Lazario wrote:He's a nice guy but, really... when was the last time a new Disney animated feature was something to get excited over? Tangled was decent but Princess and the Frog was lousy and if it weren't for these films,

Wait, Weren't you the one who said that PatF is the "Best 2d animated movie made since SB." ???

I remember Goliath was debating with you over that.

I've never said anything nice about Princess and the Frog. I trashed it before I saw it, after I saw it, and nearly the entire time during. I thought it was awful.

And I actually never use the phrase "2d." Doesn't that mean it's not 3-D? Almost everything's always in 2-D anyway.

I have no idea who you're thinking of.

then maybe it was someone else. Probably Rudy Matt then.

Kyle wrote:A fix for that could be to just make the style emulate a less detailed painting. the more impressionistic you go the less distracting it would be.

That's why I suggested Snow White. Many regard that as more beautiful and detailed than Cinderella, but not as distractingly detailed as Sleeping Beauty. They even did that one experiment recreating Snow White's hand-painted cottage background in CGI, remember? Why they didn't go ahead with the painterly animation after developing that, who knows. I call BULL on the executives canceling the painterly animation just because it was too distracting.

And it's kind of why I'm hoping John and Ron's next film will be painterly.

Don Hahn just posted the following on facebook in response to someone posting on his wall about Glen's leaving.

"Glen's made a great personal decision for himself with complete respect from Disney and all of us who are his fans and friends. And as for technique, well Glen made a lasting impact on Disney animation and he'd be the first to tell you that it doesn't matter if it's pencils, pixels or puppets, they are all in service of just one thing...lasting characters and great story."

Thought it was pretty moving, and that some of you might enjoy it.

Jim Hill wrote:If Keane has decided to step away from WDAS so that he can finally work on his long-gestating passion project (which is reportedly an animated version of Beethoven's 9th symphony. Which -- given that Walt Disney Animation Studios is unlikely to put another "Fantasia" follow-up into production anytime soon -- won't be funded with Mickey's Moolah) ... Well, I say more power to him.

Jim Hill wrote:I'd especially urge the folks at Disney Publishing to contact Keane. Given that I'd love to see what's in that book that Glen's allegedly been working on for the past 8 years.

Source: http://jimhillmedia.com/editor_in_chief ... dlers.aspx

Wow, so, he's essentially been working on Fantasia 3?

Now THAT is interesting.

I never posted in this thread, but pap64's post made me laughing for about 5 minutes.

Considering he's most famous for his work 2D animation, it's not really a surprise that Keane left Disney, which is mostly focused on 3D now. Maybe Dreamworks would at least allow him to be more creative with the 3D animation and designs than Disney.

Now I can see it. Glen Keane likes the Disney essence. Classic stuff. Not Dreamworks stuff. Not "new Disney" stuff.

Oy.