DVDizzy Forum

The RT score is now at 55%. I thought the score would go higher as more reviews comes in, but it just keeps going down.

Pokenonbinary wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 2:41 pm

DisneyJedi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 8:23 am I saw an early screening of Wish yesterday.

Screw Rotten Tomatoes! Screw all the naysaying critics!

We wanted a love letter from Disney Animation to its past and fans? We got it!

I won’t go into spoilers and I know I’m still on a post-movie high not even a full day later, but I will say I haven’t felt this genuinely happy about a Disney movie in forever!

Everytime someone says fuck critics I know the movie will be REALLY BAD...

Well, it is the same site that gave a rotten score to The Super Mario Bros Movie and Five Nights At Freddy’s (both movies I really loved) while giving a certified fresh to trash like Cuties.

Farerb wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 8:36 pmThe RT score is now at 55%. I thought the score would go higher as more reviews comes in, but it just keeps going down.

I think such a low score from critics does not only reflect their views on Wish, but Disney's output in general. It's indicative of an increasing cultural shift away from Disney. People don't feel the need to be lenient on them or give them the benefit of a doubt.

Farerb wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 8:36 pm The RT score is now at 55%. I thought the score would go higher as more reviews comes in, but it just keeps going down.

This one is definitely getting mixed reactions from critics. Audience response seems to be more favorable, though, but we'll see. It could go either way.

Although from what I am seeing, it seems like that Wish isn't so much a bad movie as it is only an average/OK kind of film, and considering that this is supposed to be the 100th anniversary film, you can't blame anyone for being disappointed. So on that note it might be a letdown. But if the film is still enjoyable and you don't go in with those kind of expectations it might play better.

My expectation is that it will be a pleasant enough outing, but not in the same league as the other Disney classics. I still refuse to believe it will be as bad as Home on the Range or Ralph Breaks the Internet, though. Those two were just awful. What baffles me is that critics reviewed that one. I don't know what they were thinking but it was obvious to me that that movie was a commercial disguised as a movie.

I have to ask, has Disney actually been marketing this movie? Because I was told that Wish’s marketing was “only slightly better” than the more recent films and that even families with kids had no idea it was around the corner. I would like to believe that Wish is being marketed like there’s no tomorrow, but… yeah.

DisneyJedi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 8:40 pm

Pokenonbinary wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 2:41 pm
Everytime someone says fuck critics I know the movie will be REALLY BAD...

Well, it is the same site that gave a rotten score to The Super Mario Bros Movie and Five Nights At Freddy’s (both movies I really loved) while giving a certified fresh to trash like Cuties.

I haven't seen 5 nights but Mario was a very bad movie

And not the Cuties argument again...RT is just a review agregator, they don't review movies

Also it's a movie directed by a black French Senegalese exmuslim woman about her own life experiences, the fact that 99% of people haven't even seen the movie

DisneyJedi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 10:25 pm I have to ask, has Disney actually been marketing this movie? Because I was told that Wish’s marketing was “only slightly better” than the more recent films and that even families with kids had no idea it was around the corner. I would like to believe that Wish is being marketed like there’s no tomorrow, but… yeah.

I've heard that complaint too, that some people I know only know the film is coming out because I let them know about it...I've heard short commercials on the radio (no dialogue from the film, just announcing that it'll be in theaters), and Cartoon Network plays TV spots...I'd like to think that ABC and Disney Channel, Freeform, etc, are advertising it, but I don't know.

They hopefully are advertising it on Disney+ and Hulu; if they're not advertising it on YouTube then that's a mistake...

I saw plenty of ads for this on Youtube and Instagram.

Disney pulled out all the stops for the promotion of Wish. Not just with commercials and ads, but a ton of events, contests, and partnerships. People just love to use marketing as a scapegoat whenever a movie they like underperforms.

There’s only a handful of examples where Disney intentionally dropped the ball with marketing because they knew they had a bad film on their hands. That’s not what happening here.

Wish is definitely receiving the royal treatment.

I think Disney can still deliver hits, but the public is more critical. Inside out 2 already has more buzz than Wish for example.

Tom Bancroft calls Jennifer Lee out for her comments about hand-drawn animation:



(Posted in this thread because her comments pertain to the production of Wish.)

I'd say movies like Tangled, for the hair animation, and Moana do indeed look much better in 3D - I don't think the gorgeous parts with water in Moana would have looked nearly as good in 2D. But for Frozen and here 2D would work better, there are many moments where I really don't like how their faces look in 3D, and for Wish somehow it got worse especially for background characters.

Sotiris wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 4:57 am Disney pulled out all the stops for the promotion of Wish. Not just with commercials and ads, but a ton of events, contests, and partnerships. People just love to use marketing as a scapegoat whenever a movie they like underperforms.

Period!!!

I have myself used that in other movies, but sometimes it's true that movies don't get much promotion, for example the first Shazam movie had the teaser one year before the release date and the official the month it released


Btw I've seen many negative reviews from normal people in twitter, it's JOEVER

Wish is now sitting at 53% on Rotten Tomatoes. Let’s just pray the score doesn’t sink any lower.

ElMaximo13 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 10:45 am Wish is now sitting at 53% on Rotten Tomatoes. Let’s just pray the score doesn’t sink any lower.

It's going to the 40s when the normal critics add their reviews

The movie is finished unless its another Mario where general audience liked the movie

Lele wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 10:15 am I'd say movies like Tangled, for the hair animation, and Moana do indeed look much better in 3D - I don't think the gorgeous parts with water in Moana would have looked nearly as good in 2D. But for Frozen and here 2D would work better, there are many moments where I really don't like how their faces look in 3D, and for Wish somehow it got worse especially for background characters.

That's an astute observation. I wonder why they couldn't just combine the two media. The technology has been around for ages and surely it has to have improved from when they experimented with it in films like Treasure Planet (like wasn't B.E.N. all CG?) and now.

I won't see WISH until tomorrow but perhaps that is what they were aiming for?

I started out as a 2D purist and over time the 3D has grown on me. But the one thing that really divides the two for me is that (and yes this is subjective) 2D seems to keep a certain timelessness that 3D does not. If you watch something like the Lion King, it still feels pretty fresh. On the other hand, if you want Tangled (and I'm not bagging on it; it's one of my favorite WDAS films) parts of it just look super primitive compared to newer films.

I would agree with the water effects, but not with the hair. Disney was more than capable of creating lush, bouncy, and flowing hand-drawn hair, both above and under the sea. The hair in Tangled was more of a prop than actual character's hair anyway and apart from combing scenes, it was used like you'd use a rope or a pulley. Which is something I'm certain any competent 2D animator could have pulled off (see that animation of a snake chasing Tarzan only to end up stuck).

(I also remember reading that one of the initial development ideas floated around for the movie that eventually became Tangled was to have a CG hair on the 2D main character.)

I agree that the medium should be dependent on the story being told and there's no reason both mediums can't be used together or interchangeably. Movie based on a comic book? Use 2D animation or stylized CG animation to replicate the look and feel of a panel spread. Movie based on a fairytale or a legend? Best suited for 2D animation to replicate the feel of an illustrated storybook. Movies about toys, bugs, cars, animals? Use realistic but not photo-realistic CG animation. Play with styles, visuals, themes. Both Wreck-It Ralph movies were such a missed opportunity visually and could have utilized different looks for different video game worlds/internet sections.

I wonder though, if Wish ends up flopping, will Disney somehow find a way to blame that on hand-drawn animation as well? Will they conclude that because the movie "looked 2D" audiences chose not to see it?

Mooky wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 12:10 pmI would agree with the water effects, but not with the hair. Disney was more than capable of creating lush, bouncy, and flowing hand-drawn hair, both above and under the sea.

Ariel and Pocahontas alone should be enough proof that long, luxurious hair can be done in 2D exceptionally well. The water effects in films like The Little Mermaid or Pinocchio dwarf anything I've seen in 3D films. And that's because I don't consider photorealism an artistic goal that animation should strive for. I honestly do not see the point or merit of having landscape that looks indistinguishable from what you find in a National Geographic documentary. Animation is the illusion, the impression of life. You don't have to see every blade of glass or every strand of hair like you do in real life. Why would you even want that to begin with? Besides, there's already a medium that captures that more easily and successfully; it's called live-action.

Mooky wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 12:10 pmI agree that the medium should be dependent on the story being told.

It's incredibly rare that the type of story favors, let alone requires, computer animation. Only Wreck-It Ralph comes to mind, and even that could have had the "real world" rendered in 2D or live-action. In fact, it would have made more sense if it did. And you're only saying that stories about toys, bugs, and cars are better suited for CG because of Pixar. But 2D has been doing those kind of stories for decades to great success. Do you honestly believe that The Brave Little Toaster or Susie the Little Blue Coupe would have looked better in CG? The truth is 2D animation trumps CG animation in almost every respect and is better suited for any type of story or genre. The sole reason 2D is not preferred over CG is its perceived unprofitability.

Mooky wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 12:10 pmMovie based on a comic book? Use 2D animation or stylized CG animation to replicate the look and feel of a panel spread.

Why use stylized CG when 2D is inherently better equipped to replicate such a look? And stylized CG is still just CG; it's not the same as a CG/2D hybrid.

Mooky wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 12:10 pmI wonder though, if Wish ends up flopping, will Disney somehow find a way to blame that on hand-drawn animation as well? Will they conclude that because the movie "looked 2D" audiences chose not to see it?

The thing is it didn't look 2D to people. All the complaints I've read about the animation is that it looked unfinished/pre-rendered/outdated CG. The public is not stupid. They may not know about non-photorealistic rendering, but they can tell what they are looking at is not 2D. And sure, Disney may equate Wish's look to 2D animation and subsequently use it as an excuse as to why the film underperformed, but at this point it doesn't matter. It makes no difference to fans of 2D animation. It's not like if it were a success they would have grenlit a 2D movie. They would have just made more films in this stylized CG. As someone who is not a fan of this look, that's a positive outcome in my book.

RyGuy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 10:50 am

Lele wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 10:15 am I'd say movies like Tangled, for the hair animation, and Moana do indeed look much better in 3D - I don't think the gorgeous parts with water in Moana would have looked nearly as good in 2D. But for Frozen and here 2D would work better, there are many moments where I really don't like how their faces look in 3D, and for Wish somehow it got worse especially for background characters.

I started out as a 2D purist and over time the 3D has grown on me. But the one thing that really divides the two for me is that (and yes this is subjective) 2D seems to keep a certain timelessness that 3D does not. If you watch something like the Lion King, it still feels pretty fresh. On the other hand, if you want Tangled (and I'm not bagging on it; it's one of my favorite WDAS films) parts of it just look super primitive compared to newer films.

I agree, but I think unfortunately this will always, or at least for a long time, be true for 3D animation as the technology behind it can always be improved, while for 2D there isn't really much technological improvement. And the different styles of 2D drawing can be always appreciated like people appreciate paintings, even when the style is outdated. It's hard to look at outdated CGI the same way.

Mooky wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 12:10 pm I wonder though, if Wish ends up flopping, will Disney somehow find a way to blame that on hand-drawn animation as well? Will they conclude that because the movie "looked 2D" audiences chose not to see it?

It would be dumb considering the success of Across the spider verse or even Arcane who use the same technology of combining 2D and 3D, but lately Disney is doing a lot of dumb things. Although it's true both Arcane and ATSV are much more aimed towards adults so maybe that plays too.
Now that I think about it, pretty much all recent popular shows and cartoons among kids are in 3D.

Who edits the videos for Disney on social networks? It is certainly not someone who has an appreciation or knowledge of the classical heritage. they were wrong. In 1990 they placed The Rescuers. And not The Rescuers Down Under. It's a bit worrying.. there is no supervision
https://www.facebook.com/DisneyAnimatio ... cale=he_IL