DVDizzy Forum

So, no Day of the Dead announcement?

disneyprincess11 wrote:So, no Day of the Dead announcement?

Probably the Pixar lamp poster. Hopefully we'll be getting an announcement during the panel.

Nice line-up for Pixar. Finding Dory will go up against Ice Age Collision Course next summer while Toy Story 4 will go straight up against Despicable Me 3 in 2yrs. I wonder what sequels will challenge Cars 3 & The Incredibles 2?

And you wonder why there's no 2D films

At what time the panel occurs?

rodrigo_ca wrote:At what time the panel occurs?

It's a 2-hour panel and starts at 3 p.m. LA time.

DisneyEra wrote:Nice line-up for Pixar. Finding Dory will go up against Ice Age Collision Course next summer while Toy Story 4 will go straight up against Despicable Me 3 in 2yrs. I wonder what sequels will challenge Cars 3 & The Incredibles 2?

And you wonder why there's no 2D films

Yeah, it's because of too many competing CG studios nobody asked for.

Thanks maxxie03!
It's already 4:55 PM in here and I'm freaking out. Why in such a distant time-zone, Cali? Why?

DisneyEra wrote:Nice line-up for Pixar. Finding Dory will go up against Ice Age Collision Course next summer while Toy Story 4 will go straight up against Despicable Me 3 in 2yrs. I wonder what sequels will challenge Cars 3 & The Incredibles 2?

And you wonder why there's no 2D films

You're right. Studios would rather cash-in on twenty thousand sequels than do anything creative, that's very apparent. And sad.

I'd rather see less sequels and more original films, but being a sequel doesn't necessarily preclude a film from being creative.

While I was never clamouring for a Finding Nemo sequel or another Toy Story (especially after the third one capped the series off so nicely), the direction they will be taking Dory's character in Finding Dory seems worthwhile, and as for Toy Story 4, it seems to be more of a spin-off, so I'm not totally against the idea if they truly do have a great story on their hands (I'm not exactly teeming with confidence in the film from what they've told us so far, but I won't write it off yet). I just wish they wouldn't title it "Toy Story 4," since it really seems a bit removed from the rest of the series in the sense that it is a romantic story and seemingly won't focus on the relationships between humans and toys. It should be titled in a vein similar to the TV specials IMO.

The Incredibles has endless potential due to its genre, and plus, with it coming from Brad Bird, that's enough to keep me optimistic for now. Still scratching my head over Cars 3, though.... (Yes, $1 billion merchandise franchise, blah blah blah, I know...)

I mean, looking at that line-up of posters, 2/3 of the films being sequels indeed does not inspire a lot of confidence (I mean, my first reaction to seeing the images from D23 was somewhat of a sinking feeling, even already having known all of those were in the line-up), but I also believe there is still room for creativity in sequels. In terms of sequels, Pixar only has a 50-50 success rate so far IMO, so hopefully they can improve that number.

I don't mind sequels when full effort goes into them, but I just don't see what's worth celebrating about seeing a full lineup of sequels paired against another line-up of sequel competition. I mean, haha, those hand-drawn animated films suck, but every 3D film in existence birthing a sequel is a positive comment on the animation industry?

Maybe if they spread the sequels apart a little bit more, it wouldn't look and sound so awful. Hopefully Cars at least will finally die after the third one.

Ice Age Collision Course

unprincess wrote:

Ice Age Collision Course

I'd have to agree. Knowing that the first one was originally going to be another Don Bluth film only makes me desire the hand-drawn movie that could have been over the milked CG franchise that it became (and sadly, I could say the same about Frozen as well).

Check out this EW article on The Good Dinosaur http://www.ew.com/article/2015/08/14/go ... peter-sohn

Now, let's just get rid of the unnecessaries here; Toy Story 4 and Cars 3 are quite unneeded. One could argue the same for Finding Dory and The Incredibles 2, but at least we know the former will at least be funny (thanks to Ellen) and the latter will be action-packed and heartwarming (because I trust Bird's judgement).

maxxie03 wrote:I think the poster in between TS4 and Cars 3 is an unannounced original film.

You were right!

Disney's Divinity wrote:I don't mind sequels when full effort goes into them, but I just don't see what's worth celebrating about seeing a full lineup of sequels paired against another line-up of sequel competition. I mean, haha, those hand-drawn animated films suck, but every 3D film in existence birthing a sequel is a positive comment on the animation industry?

Maybe if they spread the sequels apart a little bit more, it wouldn't look and sound so awful. Hopefully Cars at least will finally die after the third one.

Yeah, well I definitely agree with you there. It definitely is a little disheartening to see that Pixar line-up considering they only had one sequel among their first ten films. Then, after Toy Story 3, boom, they seemingly have sequelitis. It definitely is not the most encouraging line-up, and a slate of mostly original films would definitely much more worth celebrating.

That said, I'm just saying that IMO there is room for creativity within sequels, so we shouldn't be so quick to write them off, as individual films. Who knows, maybe Cars will finally redeem that franchise? (I'm not actually counting on it, but still.)

The disappearance of 2D animation from the mainstream studio system is definitely disheartening, but I don't think it really has anything to do with the trends we are seeing now. It's just too bad that the market only began to become saturated with animated films after CGI had become the go-to medium for mainstream animation, because now that's all we get.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I don't mind sequels when full effort goes into them

Me neither. Frankly, I've never had against sequels, due to the expansion of their universes and characters. Though of course if some effort is put to them.

ce1ticmoon wrote: The disappearance of 2D animation from the mainstream studio system is definitely disheartening, but I don't think it really has anything to do with the trends we are seeing now.

I agree, that's why I was responding to someone who brought it up.

ce1ticmoon wrote:It's just too bad that the market only began to become saturated with animated films after CGI had become the go-to medium for mainstream animation, because now that's all we get.

I think the foundation of DreamWorks is partly to blame, because they were the first to push out animated competition in the medium of CGI, and the fact that DreamWorks and Pixar both put out CG bug movies in 1998 almost makes you think their competition was deliberate. But then Shrek came around and it was really that movie that turned studios away from hand-drawn, especially Disney (why else do you think that Chicken Little felt like it was trying so hard to replicate the style of DreamWorks?). I feel like Pixar's The Incredibles had a hand in it as well, where CG movies started becoming "too advanced for their own good", and there was literally nothing about that movie that had to be completely CGI anyway. I mean, all that work put into filling a whole CG movie with humans just so it could take the place of drawing them (hence, Tangled and Frozen), when the entire movie could have just been made in hand-drawn animation?

Imagine how much better the animation industry could have still been for 2D animation if there had never been a DreamWorks studio or a stupid green ogre as their mascot for CGI.

DisneyFan09 wrote:

Disney's Divinity wrote:I don't mind sequels when full effort goes into them

Me neither. Frankly, I've never had against sequels, due to the expansion of their universes and characters. Though of course if some effort is put to them.

That's why I've always liked the Aladdin sequels and TV series more than most of the other DTV sequels and movie based TV shows from Disney. I feel like they did a good job of expanding upon the world and lore of the original film and all came together to form a pretty consistent continuity for the franchise.

2Disney4Ever wrote:I think the foundation of DreamWorks is partly to blame, because they were the first to push out animated competition in the medium of CGI, and the fact that DreamWorks and Pixar both put out CG bug movies in 1998 almost makes you think their competition was deliberate. But then Shrek came around and it was really that movie that turned studios away from hand-drawn, especially Disney (why else do you think that Chicken Little felt like it was trying so hard to replicate the style of DreamWorks?). I feel like Pixar's The Incredibles had a hand in it as well, where CG movies started becoming "too advanced for their own good", and there was literally nothing about that movie that had to be completely CGI anyway. I mean, all that work put into filling a whole CG movie with humans just so it could take the place of drawing them (hence, Tangled and Frozen), when the entire movie could have just been made in hand-drawn animation?

True. "Shrek" really made it's impact, whether we should blame on it entirely for turning the whole animation industry around or not. I remember the enourmous hype and praise for it, which was earned in a way. Yet the bad thing is that "Atlantis" was always dismissed at the expense of "Shrek" (and frankly, I find "Atlantis" to be superior). It's understandable why "Shrek" was such a huge hit, but I had my problems with it. The satire humor was the best thing about it, yet the film suddenly becomes a predictable and sappy melodrama at the end (and an actual "Wedding Planner"-rip off).

DreamWorks actually started out as a quite interesting and different oponent to Disney and other studios. They took actual risks with their films and made them different, as with "Antz" (which is superior to "Shrek" in every single way), "The Prince of Egypt", "Chicken Run" and "Spirit". And while "Shrek" belongs in the same category, it was both the best and worst thing to happen to DreamWorks, since the following movies were bland, generic "Shrek"-wannabes.

That's why I've always liked the Aladdin sequels and TV series more than most of the other DTV sequels and movie based TV shows from Disney. I feel like they did a good job of expanding upon the world and lore of the original film and all came together to form a pretty consistent continuity for the franchise.

I agree that the "Aladdin" universe got expanded in a good way, yet I have mixed feelings about the series. Some episodes were good, yet I thought some episodes were quite dark and frankly tedious at times. Iago was such an unlikable, nasty prick, Aladdin could be condescending at times and Jasmine's bad sides were expanded (frankly, I thought she was even more whiny and bratty in the series than in the movies).

But the funny thing is how the "Aladdin" series would resemble the upcoming movies. Sadira reminded me a lot of Esmeralda. Jasmine would impersonate as a soldier, in exactly the same vein as Mulan did. And Greek myth, monsters and lore would appear in the series, just as in "Hercules".