DVDizzy Forum

Prince Eric wrote:

Timon/Pumba fan wrote: Okay I'd like to apologize since I found out that Millon Dolar Baby grossed more than Finding Neverland, but I was so sure Finding Neverland did better since everybody I knew who saw it loved it. I didn't know of anybody who saw Million Dolar Baby.

Lesson learned: Just because you and everyone you know love a movie, doesn't mean it's a hit. Like, duh.

Well that wasn't my point. I just remember alot of people on the radio, my family, and lot's of other people just hailing Finding Neverland! Aside from Roger Ebert I didn't hear too many people hailing Million Dollar Baby. But still I don't think that would've happened if Millon Dollar Baby didn't win the Oscar.

But still even though critics reviews could sometimes rise the box office scores there are alot of movie that did really well but had terrible reivews!

Luke, mods...please close this thread before it turns into a bloodbath.

I will not have no more Disney dissing, my well-being can't take it...

but First I must say something!

Disney HAS lost it's magic....

It DID stop with the MULAN

Lilo & Stitch was the ONLY Disney (Not including PIXAR) film that came out from 1998-2000 that I LOVED.......

----------
END, okay now close it.......

Kenai wrote:Luke, mods...please close this thread before it turns into a bloodbath.

From what I can see, nobody has gotten out of hand yet.

Alice wrote:but First I must say something!

Disney HAS lost it's magic....

It DID stop with the MULAN

Lilo & Stitch was the ONLY Disney (Not including PIXAR) film that came out from 1998-2000 that I LOVED.......

----------
END, okay now close it.......

That pretty much sums up my feelings. Oh, and I would add Tarzan. I really enjoy all the other films, but you can't put them on a pedalstool like films from Renaissance Disney. It's like lumping the package features with the original five. They're enjoyable, but they're not the REAL thing.

Close the thread? This is a very civilized debate. What happened to freedom of speech?

If you can't handle other's opinions - then don't read them.

Prince Eric wrote:That pretty much sums up my feelings. Oh, and I would add Tarzan. I really enjoy all the other films, but you can't put them on a pedalstool like films from Renaissance Disney. It's like lumping the package features with the original five. They're enjoyable, but they're not the REAL thing.

Again, it all comes down to personal opinions. The only movies I haven't enjoyed out of the 2000 era are Treaure Planet and Home on the Range. Some of the movies after The Lion King I would rank higher than Lion King (Tarzan for example).

You see, different people have different feelings about these movies. Some already consider the later films classics. To say Disney magic stopped at a certain period is anything but true. It all comes down to how you look at things.

And don't close this thread, I find this discussion quite interesting.

I'm skipping back a bit, because I've been unable to post for the past 2 days.

Prince Eric wrote:I think there's too much confusion on this thread because everyone wants to put in their two cents based on opinions.....Now, let's analyze everything from a logistical standpoint...

Well, you can't really judge anything artistic on a logistical standpoint. It's like the theory for awarding points to poems in Dead Poet's Society - but here we go

Prince Eric wrote:1.) A lot of people here are saying that they don't judge a movie's success based on box-office. Oh, well, I guess those people are a little slow. Yes, it could be a GREAT movie, but if the money isn't coming in, then it's not a success, is it? (At least from a financial stand-point.)
Examples:
A.) The Emperor's New Groove - This movie didn't break even until 2003, three years after it was released in theaters. Sure, now it can be technically considered a success, but look how long it took! A 120 million+ film grossing 89 million dollars, excluding marketing is a pretty big hit to the studio.
B.) Treasure Planet - Wonderful animation, yada-yada-yada. 140 million dollars spent on a film that barely covered its marketing. Yes guys, this was a huge success!

Well there's artistic success and commercial success. I doubt you would hail Jackass the Movie a success Eric, but it made many times its production costs. Generally, people who only look at the box office when assessing the worth of a film are "a little slow".

Prince Eric wrote:2.) People act like every CGI is a huge blockbuster. Wrong. Considering the budget and marketing of these films, a 100 million dollars take is hardly profitable. Really, the only huge blockbusters are from Disney/Pixar and the Shrek franchise. People are way off in dismissing the Pixar films as just nice flashy productions. Reviewers have said this repeatedly: the stories are what make these films timeless. Yes, the have super-great (now I'm making up words) animation, but the story comes first and the audience realizes that. Why did Home on the Range tank? OK, nice animation, but it sucked story wise! They couldn't even decide weather or not to make it a full-blown Alan Menken musical. Has everybody forgotten how plagued this picture was with story problems durin production...Hmph!...If you like the movie, that's fine, but it's by no means an artistic success.

Well, I think your right to some extent. But all of the films from Disney's past have had story problems during production. What about "Black Monday" on Aladdin? Was Aladdin an artistic success or not?

Difficulties do not mean the result is not an artistic success. Lots of highly-regarded writers have suffered from writers block. Does their difficulties mean the final books are not artistic sucesses?

As for stories, if you took the time to read some of the reviews linked to from the RottenTomatoes site for Finding Nemo you will find, in this case, the story is often mentioned after the visuals and, considering Finding Nemo fresh rating of 98% is dismissed or critisised for being derivative or formulatic a surprising number of times.

Prince Eric wrote:3.) Critics may not effect opening weekend, but they effect longevity. Van Helsing had a 55% drop-off rate the following weekend. So in effect, a bad post-first week run negates the numbers of the huge box-office opening.

Timon/Pumba fan's little opinion about Finding Nemo over Brother Bear is in the minority. I'm not saying it should be disgarded, my friend, but you shouldn't use your opinion as a FACT to combat the obvious. If people loved Brother Bear (a modest hit), it would have benefited from very strong word-of-mouth. It didn't. Finding Nemo did. Boo-hoo. Whatever.

Nonsense. Reviews are published before a movie opens, so bad reviews would affect the opening weekend's takings more than the drop off the following week. The drop-off the following week is due to word-of-mouth.

There's plenty of amazingly well reviewed films which do not get the box-office deserved if reviews were the only criteria. From The Iron Giant to Shaun of the Dead to the films you yourself are so fond of, such as Bride and Perjudice and Hotel Rwanda. True, some of these had limited openings, but strong reviews and word-of-mouth would have given them longer theatrical windows or expanded the screens.

Prince Eric wrote:As regards to the musicals, I don't think every film should have to be a musical (Studio Ghibli is a testament to that), but what have been Disney's strength? Animated musicals based on fairy tales. Come on people, you can't DENY that! They have Deviated from The Forumla for seven years already, time to give it a shot again. Logic, people, logic...

But again Eric. Logic. The people who made the musicals for Disney are no longer employed by Disney. Disney have tried to make musicals in the past - in fact one of the films you critisise for not-knowing what it was (Home on the Range) was originally a full-musical.

But they couldn't make it work. It is not logical to make an animated musical fairytale just because you feel you have to. Especially if nobody can find the right way of making it work.

People do not know how to make a blockbuster film. Or how to make a successful musical. Some people may claim to know the theory, but theories, with all their dramatic acts, dramatic peaks and drops, and even rules for character development don't mean anything. If it was that mechanical, every studio would be making a series of blockbuster smashes.

Disney is already making an animated musical fairytale - Rapunzel, which most people in this thread seems to have forgotten. The question is, are Disney doing it for the right reasons, or the wrong reasons? Because if Disney are only doing it because they feel that they should do it rather than because they want to do it, or preferably were inspired to do it, it has already failed.

well, if you mean on a economical way, Disney haven´t lost is magic.

But artistically speking:
It seems that lately all the movies have been made more like because exist some kind of pressure to release every year one movie, not because it be a story worthy to be told or because is a magical one.

"One oak take yars to grow, a pumpkin some weeks" what I mean is that a strong card, a good movie take time, it need imagination, heart and mind so it can be as the writter imagine it and developed it on it´s mind.

Talking about the CGI, IMO Disney have lost a magic he only had on Monster Inc.
I saw Madagascar last friday and I just loved it.I totally forget the Incredibles, which even bored me at one moment.
Disney is trying to do every time more realistic movies(REMEMBER; IS JUST MY IMO)meanwhile Dreamworks made it more funny, more cartoon-like.
When I saw Madagascar I feel I was watching a classic Tex Avery cartoon but with CGI characters, and I enjoy it!
CGI is different than Live action and 2D, so it can be just very real or just very cartoon-like, maybe a cartoon-like movie, but with a deep plot behind it.

remember,is just my Personal opinion and nothing else

Rapunzel may be a musical, but the question is, will it be a BROADWAY-STYLE musical? There's a big difference.

ENCHANTED is also to be a "musical" but who knows which kind, yet.

MovieMusicals.net wrote:Rapunzel may be a musical, but the question is, will it be a BROADWAY-STYLE musical? There's a big difference.

ENCHANTED is also to be a "musical" but who knows which kind, yet.

How do you define a "Broadway" style. Which of the following are, and why:

West Side Story
Little Shop of Horrors
Rocky Horror (Picture) Show
Hairspray
South Park: Bigger Longer Uncut
!Moulin Rogue!
Fame

I know some films can have music without being technically musicals (such as Showgirls). But what is a "Broadway" style musical?

2099net wrote:I'm skipping back a bit, because I've been unable to post for the past 2 days.

Good job on misconstruing everything I said. I'm not going to repeat my initial thesis as you did nothing to disprove anything I said.

2099net wrote:

MovieMusicals.net wrote:Rapunzel may be a musical, but the question is, will it be a BROADWAY-STYLE musical? There's a big difference.

ENCHANTED is also to be a "musical" but who knows which kind, yet.

How do you define a "Broadway" style. Which of the following are, and why:

West Side Story
Little Shop of Horrors
Rocky Horror (Picture) Show
Hairspray
South Park: Bigger Longer Uncut
!Moulin Rogue!
Fame

I know some films can have music without being technically musicals (such as Showgirls). But what is a "Broadway" style musical?

I did not see FAME or SOUTH PARK but I did see the others. Broadway-style musicals are called "book musicals." Book musicals are when the songs in the film are sung by the characters. The songs tell the story - whether it be plot, character development, emotion reaction, etc.

Films with songs, such as TARZAN, are not "book musicals." I call them movies with music.

On Broadway, not all shows are book musicals. There are more than one type of musical. However, generally all musicals on Broadway are book musicals, thus is why I call them "Broadway-style" musicals.

First I want to take a sec to say hello, I've been visiting UltimateDisney.com for news for quite some time, but never participated in the forums till now.

This thread caught my eye, because I was lucky enough to have grown up with Disney's wonderful films. As a small child I watched the classics such as Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, & Peter Pan and totally fell in love; the Little Mermaid was released just as I was entering school, and I remember that my very first school field trip in kindergarten was to see the Little Mermaid in the theatre. This movie captured me in such a strong way, as I'm sure it did many, however it wouldn't have done so without the powerful songs incorporated into the story.

I'm a musician today, a singer, & a songwriter, and thinking back, Disney's Broadway style musicals really helped define who I am today. In the small town I grew up in, Disney's musical films were probably the closest anyone would ever get to Broadway.

I've always loved music & art, and in pre-adolescent years I even went so far as to say that I wanted to be a Disney Animator when I grew up! I would draw all the disney characters in class instead of doing my work, hehe. I've thought about this a lot, and man am I glad I changed my mind about that career choice! I would be very angry if I had really pursued that and the Disney company ending up what it is today. I would probably not have a job, or else would be in the DTV division! I'm not gonna lie to you, I'm not a big fan of CGI. Not that I don't like working with computers, I made my first website on my own when I was 9 yrs old. However, it really annoys me that people are no longer accepting traditional hand drawn animation. And it also annoys me that people get so caught up in how real the visuals are, etc, like in the previous posting of the reviews of Finding Nemo.

If you're so worried about how real the visuals are in a film, just go see a live action film for goodness sake. Animation is about entering into a whole new world, excuse the pun. Not to mention that no one has really gotten the hang of making realistic CGI humans. I am SO sick and tired of all these animated films about ANIMALS! Just because the Lion King was a success doesn't mean that EVERY movie should be about animals. I'm afraid, though, that now that Disney seems to have given up on the 2D that everything new will be about animals.

I totally disagree that Finding Nemo would have been as successful if it were 2D. I, myself, actually didn't see the movie until it was on DVD. Wanna know why? I absolutely REFUSE to see a movie with so much promotion, but gives you NO CLUE what the movie is about. I mean, for crying out loud, all the trailers were basically a shot of the ocean & fish going by, then the title "Finding Nemo" by the creators of Toy Story, etc. I mean, really. Plus it's another freakin movie about some animal or another . Not that I want to see CGI human-based movies though, honestly. The Incredibles wasn't much better, but at least right before the movie was out in theaters you had some idea of what it was about.

I think trying to make animation look SO realistic is a mistake. I think CG films should be an exception, not the rule. There are still too many small things wrong with CG, in my opinion (i.e. humans), that the flaws are way too noticeable. With 2D animation, you can really get caught up in the film and the story and the music, and you forget you're watching a cartoon. The humans aren't perfectly realistic in 2D either, but in CG it's hard for me to watch because everything else is so realistic, then BAM you get slapped with a fake & jerkily moving person. Come on, people.

Now, I myself didn't see the Emperor's New Groove till it was on DVD, because I was in Highschool at the time (need I say more?) But after seeing it, I truly think it is brilliant, and it is now one of my favorites. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember it being very musical, at least not Broadwayish.... maybe there was a song or 2 sung by a character, but I can't remember. I know there was that Funny Friend song or something, but I can't remember if it was sung by a character in the movie. Anyway, my point being that I don't think Disney has to make the movie a full out Broadway style musical for it to be great. I would like for them to revert back to that, because I SO miss getting to enjoy that, and most every one of my favorite Disney films was a musical. But I don't think they HAVE to. I also enjoyed Brother bear, not as much as previous musicals, but it was OK (although again with the animals). I thought Mulan was absolutely BRILLIANT, being probably the last real musical.

Maybe Disney should take in some of these celebrity comedians, as was mentioned that Shark Tale, etc have done. If it's done well. Maybe that would bring the public to see another 2D broadway style musical. If only Robin Williams would come back to disney......

For Disney To Get There Magic Back Heres what they need to do.

-Release a movie that looks interseting for adults. Have a movie where the adults dont have to sit there being bored looking at there watch. Dont just release home on the range where only kids may like it.

- Have good advertising.. IMHO lilo and stitch had good ads and thats why i think they did well. Make the movie intersetin for the whole family... dont put crude humor in the ads or anything cause then only kids woould wanna see it.

-Release the movie at a quite time.. IMO they release Bro bear at the worst time.. the day after halloween.. I mean kids and adults are tired.... dont release the movie in front of a big weekend like how treasure planet was going againt harry potter and James Bond. Release the movie around a quite time like March like around When Ice Age came out.

- Sell the DVD around the holidays if it came out before then.. It will be a popular thing to get.

-Release the Movies around the holidays if nothing big or opposie is against it. Like dont release the movie against spidey 2 or star wars. But even it could go against the matrix.. It would probblay loose but it would have a different fan base auidance. If you release it around during the holidays more people are off and they will see it.

- Make it a musical...thats one of the reasons why ppl love aladdin an beauty an the beast... but Dont get Hilary Duff Or Linday Lohan.. Get People That adults will like.

-Make the story good, have a funny/memorable charcters.. have good voices.

If they follow that the movie may do well.

Id like disney to take on a ROmeo and Juliet kindof thing... Make it a happy ending but overall i culd see that working.
________
Chevrolet straight-4 engine

"If you're so worried about how real the visuals are in a film, just go see a live action film for goodness sake. Animation is about entering into a whole new world, excuse the pun. Not to mention that no one has really gotten the hang of making realistic CGI humans. I am SO sick and tired of all these animated films about ANIMALS! Just because the Lion King was a success doesn't mean that EVERY movie should be about animals. I'm afraid, though, that now that Disney seems to have given up on the 2D that everything new will be about animals."

BRAVO!!!

And such a great post! Welcome to UD!

Enchanted and Rapunzel Unbraided are two upcoming Disney animated films with humans.

Soulbrotha432, welcome to the forum! Your post was a great first one, and I hope that we see more of you, with many points that I agree with. I too am partial to the style of 2D animation, especially in book based films, as it gives the impression that the words and illustrations are coming to life...

First off, welcome to the forums Soulbrotha432! Nice, informative post.

Soulbrotha432 wrote:And it also annoys me that people get so caught up in how real the visuals are, etc, like in the previous posting of the reviews of Finding Nemo. If you're so worried about how real the visuals are in a film, just go see a live action film for goodness sake. Animation is about entering into a whole new world, excuse the pun.

You just answered your own complaint, Sb432. When people enter animation, they enter a whole new world. What makes you think they don't when they enter a CGI movie? CGI is just a new form of animation. CGI is still relatively new, so when people see those movies, they enter a new world; a world where there is neither hand-drawn nor live action, but a middle world. And while one of the benefits of CGI is seeing how detailed everything is, I just go to an animated movie to enter that new world you were talking about, regardless the animation style.

Soulbrotha432 wrote:If only Robin Williams would come back to disney......

If you're talking about the disagreement he had with Disney over Aladdin, that's been long settled. Disney apologized by giving Williams a real Picasso painting, and he forgave them. He even came back for Aladdin & the King of thieves. Williams would gladly come back to Disney; it'sjust that he hasn't been asked back to play a part yet.

EDIT: yankees, get an avatar, man. I keep getting you confused with other people.

No, Robin Williams still hates Disney. Disney screwed him again after he came back to do Aladdin 3. He even sang a pro Pixar anti-Disney negro slave hymn about working for Disney.

Little Red Henski wrote:No, Robin Williams still hates Disney. Disney screwed him again after he came back to do Aladdin 3. He even sang a pro Pixar anti-Disney negro slave hymn about working for Disney.

What did they do to him that time? Geez, you'd think they would have learned their lesson. Is it because they didn't pay him enough or is it because they put "starring Robin Williams" things in all their commercials?

That song sounds interesting.