DVDizzy Forum

Glee sucks anyway. Now let's move back to original topic: the unknown Ron&John film.

This is the part where i post "Son, I am disappoint"

ajmrowland wrote:This is the part where i post "Son, I am disappoint"

Is that suppose to aim at me?

PatrickvD wrote:I'd say Mila Kunis or Anne Hathaway. Just about anyone except her. She's overly confident and over the top in her singing. Yes her voice is amazing, but she doesn't come across very humble to me. And I don't think she's that good of an actress. She's shown one dimension on Glee. But that could be the poor and uneven writing.

Maybe it's just me. She just rubs me the wrong way.

And if you want charisma out of a Glee actress, try Heather Morris. To me, she has 'it'... whatever that is.

Overly confident and over the top is what Rachel is all about. That's the point.

I think she'll be great in ANYTHING she's in.

In other news, I do hope that the movie Ron and Jon are making is somewhere out of their comfort zone, because they haven't made a spectacular film in 16 years. (Although I do think Treasure Planet is at least underrated.) But as for all the rumors so far about Rumpelstiltskin and the others... I just kind of hope they stay away from the straight-up fairy tales, even though that's my favorite type of film. I just think the next fairy tale should come from Nathan and Byron again.

SWillie! wrote:In other news, I do hope that the movie Ron and Jon are making is somewhere out of their comfort zone, because they haven't made a spectacular film in 16 years.

There wasn’t anything wrong with Hercules, even if Disney ignores it these days. Pocahontas through Tarzan are all generally ignored/forgotten, even though they did well. Pocahontas would probably be pimped more in the princess line if it weren't for all that controversy over the inaccuracies. They should have been grateful for the success they had with those films, even if they didn’t match The Lion King, considering how low the company would sink in the 2000s.

Sometimes I believe the posters here underrate the part TP&TF may have played in some of Tangled’s success (aside from the alternate marketing and different medium). Tangled made twice as much as TP&TF, which is similar to the Fab Four apex, where nearly every film doubled the previous in sales. Tangled is Beauty and the Beast to TP&TF’s Mermaid (not that I think either of these films are as good as Mermaid and B&tB, but you get the idea).

Disney's Divinity wrote:Pocahontas would probably be pimped more in the princess line if it weren't for all that controversy over the inaccuracies.

I don't think that's the reason Pocahontas is ignored in the princess line. Sure there was a critic here and there who complained about inaccuracies but if I recall correctly the Native-American community was satisfied with the film and with the portrayal of their culture.

The reason is because the film did not meet studio expectations box office-wise when it was released and it's generally not considered a big money-maker for the company. It's the same reason why the film was not part of the 'Platinum' line. It's about money. Then it's always about money with Disney.

Which is a real shame though, and I think Disney is missing a big market by not merchandising it up more. John Smith is a great action hero for boys, as a 1990s kid I idolized him more than I did the traditional Disney princes. I was even him for Halloween 1995 (and NO, I won't post the pictures )!

monorail91 wrote:Which is a real shame though, and I think Disney is missing a big market by not merchandising it up more. John Smith is a great action hero for boys, as a 1990s kid I idolized him more than I did the traditional Disney princes. I was even him for Halloween 1995 (and NO, I won't post the pictures )!

It's strange that movies like Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notre Dame, they did better than The Little Mermaid at the boxoffice, is "never" promoted by Disney. The same goes for Hercules, Mulan and Tarzan. Disney only promotes Mermaid, Beauty, The Lion King and to a lesser degree Aladdin among the classics from the 90s. If Disney only had promoted more of their movies with merchandise, in the parks, and given them proper re-releases on DVD/Blu-ray, the general public would remember those movies and Disney would earn more money in the long run. If people forget about Pocahontas, Hercules, Hunchback etc and stops caring about those films, then Disney will lose money.

IA with you Prince Edward

I think it's ridiculous that Disney has this huge library of films they could market and make profit out of, but choose to rehash the same movies over and over, it doesn't make sense to me from a business standpoint to not utilize all that you have in your arsenal.

Prince Edward wrote:

monorail91 wrote:Which is a real shame though, and I think Disney is missing a big market by not merchandising it up more. John Smith is a great action hero for boys, as a 1990s kid I idolized him more than I did the traditional Disney princes. I was even him for Halloween 1995 (and NO, I won't post the pictures )!

It's strange that movies like Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notre Dame, they did better than The Little Mermaid at the boxoffice, is "never" promoted by Disney. The same goes for Hercules, Mulan and Tarzan. Disney only promotes Mermaid, Beauty, The Lion King and to a lesser degree Aladdin among the classics from the 90s. If Disney only had promoted more of their movies with merchandise, in the parks, and given them proper re-releases on DVD/Blu-ray, the general public would remember those movies and Disney would earn more money in the long run. If people forget about Pocahontas, Hercules, Hunchback etc and stops caring about those films, then Disney will lose money.

The Little Mermaid sold more tickets and received critical acclaim. Adjusted for inflation, The Little Mermaid made more than Pocahontas, Hunchback and Hercules.

Hercules received Disney's biggest promotional push ever at the time. But they lost money on it. It's not surprising they consider it a risk to do a big Blu-ray re-release for a film that was never a financial or critical success to begin with.

Still, nostalgia for The Lion King at the moment is big enough to warrant BD releases for the lesser films of the 90s. A lot of kids did grow up watching them in spite of the way they pale in comparison to Mermaid, Beauty, Aladdin and The Lion King.

Reimagined Winnie
http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... innie.html

Steve Hulett wrote:I don't think Disney will be doing hand-drawn features with the classical look of painted cels and painted backgrounds in the near future. Everything I've seen indicates that hand-drawn animation will be going in a different visual direction.

Feature Employment Factoids
http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... toids.html

Steve Hulett wrote:I saw some interesting stuff now in work inside the Hat Building. Though the studio isn't totally walking away from hand-drawn features, there doesn't appear to be any features on the map that will look like the old-style, hand-drawn specimens we enjoyed in our youth. Executives look at theatrical grosses and draw their conclusions. And their conclusions are, based on all evidence, that c.g. style features are where audiences' enthusiasms are now centered...

Oh no! Don't tell me Hand Drawn Animation is dead again! It's the end of the world!

OH, COME ON!!!!!!!!!

First, they try "killing" hand-drawn by releasing Home on the Range during a time when Disney films aren't released (Summer/Thanksgiving/Holiday season), then they put The Princess and the Frog a week before Avatar (which was bound to make billions, despite being a total ripoff in terms of plot) instead of Thanksgiving, then they put Winnie the Pooh up against Harry Potter (even if the former cost much less and the latter was bound to make millions, anyway) and now it seems like they're going to great lengths just to avoid doing any more hand-drawn movies.

Seriously, Disney. Are you doing this just so you can kill off the medium that started all of this? Roy Disney fought to keep the company alive, damn it! And this is how they repay him?! By giving him a metaphorical middle finger, even in death?!

Because, to be honest, it seems that way to me. They're just not trying anymore. All they care about anymore is... well, lemme put it like this:

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JoYWdHe4tQ4?rel=0" frameborder="0"></iframe>

It's no wonder Andreas Deja and Glen Keane left...

God, if they'd spend more time TRYING to keep hand-drawn alive, instead of spending more money on expansions to their company.... Ugh! You know, I'm starting to think that we're being screwed over big time...

DisneyJedi wrote:OH, COME ON!!!!!!!!!

Calm down, I'm as disappointed as you are, but I'm sure we have not seen the last hand drawn film. Even if there is nothing in the works now, something will come, I'm sure of it. It may end up that it takes 20 years for it to happen, but nostalgia is too big a part of popular culture to be ignored, and in film, hand drawn animation is one of those big things that harken back to nostalgia faster then most.

Some bad CGI film at the box office could help. But then again, knowing Disney, they'd probably see that as "No one wants animation anymore period!" So sad.

DisneyJedi wrote:Glen Keane left...

Glen didn't leave after all:

http://www.dvdizzy.com/forum/viewtopic. ... &start=180

milojthatch wrote:

DisneyJedi wrote:OH, COME ON!!!!!!!!!

Calm down, I'm as disappointed as you are, but I'm sure we have not seen the last hand drawn film. Even if there is nothing in the works now, something will come, I'm sure of it. It may end up that it takes 20 years for it to happen, but nostalgia is too big a part of popular culture to be ignored, and in film, hand drawn animation is one of those big things that harken back to nostalgia faster then most.

Some bad CGI film at the box office could help. But then again, knowing Disney, they'd probably see that as "No one wants animation anymore period!" So sad.

But what about that Mickey, Donald, and Goofy movie they're planning? Does this mean they lie to us? Now I'm losing hope. Like I said,

IT IS THE END OF THE WORLD! AND I'M GOING CRAZY LIKE HELL!

Sotiris wrote:

DisneyJedi wrote:Glen Keane left...

Glen didn't leave after all:

http://www.dvdizzy.com/forum/viewtopic. ... &start=180

Yes, but the recent news and my last final tomorrow aren't keeping me from being any further on edge!

nevermind.

Guys, you're over-reacting. Steve Hulett didn't say that there aren't going to be any hand-drawn films at all; just that there are only a couple in development and that the studio is supporting CG more something we already knew.

What intrigues and baffles me from what Steve said was this:

Though the studio isn't totally walking away from hand-drawn features, there doesn't appear to be any features on the map that will look like the old-style, hand-drawn specimens we enjoyed in our youth.

Everything I've seen indicates that hand-drawn animation will be going in a different visual direction.

I wonder what does he mean when he says that hand-drawn animation will be going in a different visual direction. Does that mean that they will employ a lot of CG? Does that mean they'll use Flash animation? Does that mean cell-shading? Does that mean that they will deviate from the usual 'Disney' styles in terms of design? Will they be going for something more edgy and stylized, visual-wise? Or, in the worst case scenario, will there be only a few hand-drawn elements in an otherwise fully CG feature?

Who knows?