Disney, DVD, and Beyond Forums
https://dvdizzy.com/forum/
The animation is outsourced to Prana Studios in Mumbai, the same studio that animates the Tinker Bell films for DisneyToon Studios.disneyprincess11 wrote:The CGI is actually really good for a first-time company. The animation improved a lot throughout these 4 years.
Except this time around they had one intern animate the entire thing.Sotiris wrote:The animation is outsourced to Prana Studios in Mumbai, the same studio that animates the Tinker Bell films for DisneyToon Studios.disneyprincess11 wrote:The CGI is actually really good for a first-time company. The animation improved a lot throughout these 4 years.
You're forgetting Ken Duncan, the Disney animator who supervised Meg and Jane amongst others, who worked as a character designer on the film. If you look at his drawings, they are immensely more appealing than the final product.estefan wrote:Believe it or not, quite a number of people associated with Disney worked on Legends of Oz, including Will Finn (who co-directed it), Lisa Keene, Simon Wells and Shannon Tindle.
But the animation on display in the trailer looks atrocious.estefan wrote:But I tend to prefer people go see movies and form their own individual opinions, rather than just blindly agreeing with one or two people who've seen it or basing their whole opinions entirely on trailers and advertising (which aren't put together by the filmmakers, but rather the distributor's marketing department).
This. While some could argue you can't judge characters/story by the trailer, going to see the film won't change the fact that the animation seen in the trailer is horrendous. Maybe there would be one or two scenes that aren't horrendous, possibly? But the animation in the trailer will be there.PatrickvD wrote:But the animation on display in the trailer looks atrocious.estefan wrote:But I tend to prefer people go see movies and form their own individual opinions, rather than just blindly agreeing with one or two people who've seen it or basing their whole opinions entirely on trailers and advertising (which aren't put together by the filmmakers, but rather the distributor's marketing department).
I agree with PatrickvD and Disney's Divinity entirely.estefan wrote:Believe it or not, quite a number of people associated with Disney and DreamWorks worked on Legends of Oz, including Will Finn (who co-directed it), Lisa Keene, Simon Wells and Shannon Tindle. I've actually seen the movie, but being under embargo, I can't say whether the movie showcases their talent. But I tend to prefer people go see movies and form their own individual opinions, rather than just blindly agreeing with one or two people who've seen it or basing their whole opinions entirely on trailers and advertising (which aren't put together by the filmmakers, but rather the distributor's marketing department).
I must admit that I am curious to see where the direction will go on this one. Waner Bros. confirmed that their other future releases besides this (The Lego Movie 2, Storks, and Smallfoot) will be 3D. I'd like to think that with such a classic product, they'll do hand drawn, but they could very well go CG or even the Peanuts route.A new big screen take on the modern stone age family is on the way from Warner Bros. Animation. The Hollywood Reporter today brings word that Chris Henchy ("The Campaign") is providing the screenplay with Will Ferrell and Adam McKay executive producing through Gary Sanchez Productions.
A comical take on a prehistoric family, "The Flintstones" ran for six seasons, setting a record for a primetime animated series that would not be beat for nearly thirty years (when it was overtaken by "The Simpsons"). The franchise was previously brought to the big screen as a live-action film in 1994 and was followed by a sequel, The Flinstones in Viva Rock Vegas in 2000.
Seth MacFarlane was developing an animated reboot of the property a few years ago, but plans for it ultimately failed to move forward.
Although no date for the new film has been announced, Warner Bros. did, just yesterday, put down two placeholders on their release calendar for unspecified animated project. The first will arrive February 10, 2017 and the second is set for February 9, 2018.
I highly doubt it will be anything other than CG. There's a slim chance it could be Flash-animated, but I wouldn't count on it. It's odd though the report doesn't specify the medium. I suppose animation nowadays equals CG by default unless stated otherwise. By the way, the Peanuts route is the CG route. There's no 2D animation involved with the Peanuts movie. Let's not confuse style with medium.Warm Regards wrote:I'd like to think that with such a classic product, they'll do hand drawn, but they could very well go CG or even the Peanuts route.
You hope killer, you!Sotiris wrote:I highly doubt it will be anything other than CG. There's a slim chance it could be Flash-animated, but I wouldn't count on it. It's odd though the report doesn't specify the medium. I suppose animation nowadays equals CG by default unless stated otherwise. By the way, the Peanuts route is the CG route. There's no 2D animation involved with the Peanuts movie. Let's not confuse style with medium.Warm Regards wrote:I'd like to think that with such a classic product, they'll do hand drawn, but they could very well go CG or even the Peanuts route.
As if they care about a CG bomb. How much did production cost again? I have the feeling that they'll break even, at least.)The film was produced for 70 million which is actually much higher than the average Tinker Bell film whose budget range from 30 to 35 million. It's really odd that despite the higher budget and the use of the same animation studio, Legends of Oz looks worse than the Tinker Bell movies. I don't get it.Warm Regards wrote:How much did production cost again? I have the feeling that they'll break even, at least.
No way a cheap animated film opening to such crappy reviews will make back its budget and its marketing costs, opening at the beginning of the summer season--if it lasts a full month in theaters, it'll be a minor miracle.Warm Regards wrote:Oh, but don't you guys see, this means CG is no longer viable. No one cares for the medium even though they used an identifiable story as their premise.
(
The snark is gratuitous and pointless.TsWade2 wrote:Good! This proves everybody is sick and tired of CGI and want hand drawn animation back.
Well this is how I feel about it.Fflewduur wrote:
The snark is gratuitous and pointless.